Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Job Creation

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new fiscal and monetary measures he plans to achieve a higher level of employment.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): Employment is already rising. Our policies offer the best chance of sustained growth of output and employment.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the statement in the 1944 White Paper on employment that a country will not suffer from mass unemployment as long as total demand for its goods and services is maintained at a high level?

Mr. Rees: I prefer to direct my hon. Friend to the measures introduced by this Government to improve the supply side of the economy, which will make a more lasting impact on this problem.

Mr. Loyden: What evidence is there that the Government's economic policies are working, when unemployment is rising, and all the signs are that it will continue to rise in the coming years?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is taking counsel of his fears. I can cheer him up by reminding him that the number of people in work has increased by 250,000 over the year to June 1984.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Would it not be constructive to encourage a reduction in interest rates in London, which would have the effect of reducing the exchange rate, thereby making our goods more competitive overseas and imports more expensive, and putting us on purchasing power parity with the Common Market?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend, with his knowledge of these matters, will know not only that interest rates have come down, but that the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are designed to reduce interest rates. Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend will support the Government's policies to contain public expenditure.

Mr. Terry Davis: Do Treasury Ministers repudiate the Treasury's economic model, which shows that increasing public expenditure by £1·5 billion would generate more jobs than using the same amount of money to reduce income tax? Will the Chief Secretary come clean and tell the House that the Government care more about cutting income tax than about cutting unemployment?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is obviously referring to some assumptions fed into the Treasury model by various commentators with whom he is in sympathy. Therefore, I do not necessarily accept that conclusion. If the hon. Gentleman will reflect a little, he will realise that cutting taxes by raising thresholds could make a considerable impact on the labour market. Therefore, I hope that we shall have his support for any measures that we wish to carry out in that direction.

Mr. John Browne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of current economic trends upon the creation of new jobs.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The number of people in work has risen by about a quarter of a million in the year to June 1984. Growth in employment is set to continue in 1985.

Mr. Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most heartening of replies. Does he feel that, to an important extent, this rise in employment is due to the growth of new and smaller businesses, which in itself is a reflection of the Government's introduction of policies for enterprise?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Self-employment, for example, has increased by some 400,000 between the middle of 1979 and the middle of last year, and the recent CBI survey suggests that prospects are best in the small firms and services sectors. The importance of small firms was marked by the reduction in the small firms rate of corporation tax, which was reduced substantially in this year's Budget. I hope that there will be further progress in the small firms sector next year.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that many of those new jobs are part-time only and involve relatively low skills? What will he do to enhance public demand for the skilled labour that is now on the scrap-heap because of his policies? Will he give those people a chance to get back into the labour market, by Government investment in public works?

Mr. Lawson: I do not think that many of the self-employed are part-time, as they are working full-time and very hard indeed. Of course there is a need to create more jobs, and that is why I am determined to find room within the scope of our public expenditure policy to reduce taxation in such a way that it will create greatly increased job opportunities in the years ahead.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolition of the wages councils would do a tremendous amount to increase employment opportunities? Is he aware that the electricians' union has already slashed the rate of pay for apprentices from 37 per cent. of adult wages to 23 per cent., and that, as a result, the number of apprentices has doubled?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend's example is correct and important. Clearly, the Government will have to consider the question of wages councils very seriously.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that he has failed to convince even business economists that his policies are working? They do not believe his forecasts for inflation—they think that it will be higher — or for the rate of growth — which they believe will be lower—and they say that the outlook is depressing, as unemployment will continue to rise.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Lady always finds everything very depressing — and I am not surprised, given the company she keeps. But the CBI forecasts are very much in line with those of the Treasury.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Yeo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent estimate for the public sector borrowing requirement for 1984–85.

Mr. Leigh: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Peter Rees: The PSBR for 1984–85 is projected at around £8½ billion.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the effect of the coal strike this year has been to increase the public sector borrowing requirement and, therefore, that the consequence of Arthur Scargill has been to reduce the scope for job-creating tax and national insurance cuts in next year's Budget?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The coal strike has made a very considerable difference, in that it may add, over the financial year as a whole, about £1½ billion to total borrowing.

Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) in the debate on the autumn statement last week, to the effect that losing control of the PSBR in a vain attempt to create jobs would be to fail to address the fundamental cause of our problem, which is not shortage of demand, but failure to meet it? That would be a cruel deception on the unemployed, as President Mitterrand found to his cost.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only way to create sustained long-lasting jobs is to contain inflation, which is a principal strand in the Government's policies.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: How much will have to be added to the PSBR as a result of the abolition of the GLC?

Mr. Rees: Nothing.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that since the coal strike began orders for more than £1,000 million have had to be laid before Parliament to finance the deficit of the NCB and that there is the prospect that an order for more than £600 million will be laid before Parliament? Does he accept the Chancellor's view that the strike was a worthwhile investment, given that some of his own Back Benchers now refuse to support those orders? Why will the Government not admit that they have caused the economy to run down as a result of the miners' strike and have kept the strike going because they would not negotiate and wanted MacGregor to smash the NUM?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misquoted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My right hon. Friend never said that the miners' strike was a good investment —[Interruption] He said that the restructuring of the coal industry was a worthwhile investment, and any hon. Member who cares about the long-term future of this country's coal industry should adopt that point of view.

Mr. Robert Atkins: What detrimental effects would there be for the PSBR if finance were made available to ensure that certain major contracts to sell aircraft abroad did not make a loss? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the creation and containment of jobs that would result from making such finance available would more than offset any potential losses to the PSBR?

Mr. Rees: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the exposure of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. He will know that, in the current state of the world market, that exposure is considerable. He will also know that the ECGD covers a range of Airbus orders. It may even have a favourable impact in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the Treasury's latest price tag for the Falklands?

Mr. Rees: It will not add to the public sector borrowing requirement this year, which was the original question put to me.

Books and Periodicals (VAT)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the imposition of value added tax on books and periodicals; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Over 500 representations from individuals and organisations have been received by Treasury Ministers during the last two months opposing VAT on books, newspapers and periodicals. Although the Government favour a shift in the burden of taxation from taxes on earnings to taxes on spending, we have no set views at present on how this might best be done. However, the representations on this subject are being carefully considered.

Mr. Winnick: Are the Government aware that extensive damage will be done to educatiom, libraries and the book trade generally if VAT is imposed, and that that damage will extend to newspapers and periodicals? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that there is no more support for the imposition of VAT on those items than there would be if it were to be imposed on food?

Mr. Hayhoe: A great deal of exaggerated speculation and comment is taking place. As I have said, representations have been received, and they are being considered carefully.

Mr. Cormack: Why does my hon. Friend not end damaging speculation and prevent a major revolt—one that would make last night's Tory revolt look like a storm in a teacup—by saying that such a monstrous proposal will not be considered.

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend, who is a helpful supporter of the Government, must know that it is a well-established and accepted principle that we should not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: How many of the representations received are in favour of the proposals? Can the Minister tell us whether such a tax was ever contemplated in time of war, let alone in peace? Does he understand that there is almost unanimous hostility to such a proposal from both sides of the House and throughout the country?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have seen the early-day motions on this subject which have been signed by hon. Members from both sides of the House. As I said, 500 representations have been received, and all are opposed to the proposal.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend state simply what factors, other than financial, tend to influence a Chancellor of the Exchequer—indeed, this Chancellor of the Exchequer—in reaching difficult decisions, such as that referred to on the Order Paper?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take account of financial, social, economic and political considerations in forming his judgment.

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister said that he cannot anticipate the Budget. However, the Prime Minister has already done so by promising that there would be no VAT on new buildings or food. Why cannot the Budget be anticipated in this respect? Otherwise, it confirms our suspicion that it is the Treasury's intention to impose VAT on books and periodicals.

Mr. Hayhoe: The comments by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were made in June and July, and they have been reiterated many times—[Hon. Members: "Yesterday."] The ignorance of Opposition Members is extraordinary. My right hon. Friend yesterday reiterated, in precisely the same words, what she wrote in a letter to the House Builders Federation on 5 July, and which Treasury Ministers have confirmed on many occasions.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Pike: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that all items at present zero rated for value added tax will remain zero rated.

Mr. Hayhoe: No, Sir, I cannot give such a wide-ranging undertaking.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that there is great concern about the fact that switching to indirect taxation penalises the low-paid and those on fixed incomes and that we should take more income from the higher paid? Does he also accept that any introduction of VAT on newspapers, food, gas, electricity or children's clothing and footwear will be totally unacceptable? The Minister should give categorical assurances that VAT will not be imposed on any of those items.

Mr. Hayhoe: Any reasonable commentator looking back on my right hon. Friend's Budget earlier this year, with its substantial increase in income tax thresholds and modest extension of the VAT base, will have seen that the Budget was not regressive, but was in fact helpful to low-income families.

Mr. Hayes: In the light of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's estimate that 33 per cent. of educational books are bought by parents, does my hon. Friend not feel that the imposition of VAT on books would be a catastrophe for education?

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend will certainly take those facts into account in forming his Budget judgment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it not possible for the EEC—to our membership of which I am no friend—to argue logically that, since own resources are raised on the basis of a percentage of VAT in the respective member states, it is a demand of equity that the base should be the same in all the member countries?

Mr. Hayhoe: The theoretical base upon which the calculation is made is the same for all countries, and any extension of the VAT base does not change the amount that we pay under our EEC obligations.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that many, if not most, European countries manage to survive and prosper with a much wider range of items subject to VAT than Britain? Does my hon. Friend further agree that that is another item that should be considered when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes his Budget dispositions?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend's comments are perfectly true. Most member states of the Community have a wider VAT base than this country.

Job Creation

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs he estimates would be created by an across-the-board 10 per cent. reduction in wages; and if he will indicate those sections of the economy which would respond most to such a policy.

Mr. Lawson: Each 1 per cent. reduction in the rate of increase of real pay would be likely, in time, to add between 150,000 and 200,000 new jobs.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Chancellor recollect that on 30 November he proposed the idea that a 1 per cent. reduction in wages would produce 200,000 jobs? Since then, most industrial analysts have said that it is deceitful gibberish to present such ideas when there is not one scrap of evidence to associate reduced wages with job creation? Will the right hon. Gentleman now stop this deceitful performance and tell the nation the truth? The fact is that many of the jobs created since the end of the war have come from firms which pay far above the national average.

Mr. Lawson: Every reputable economist is aware of the straightforward proposition that, just as people can price themselves out of work, so they can price themselves into work. The figures which I have cited are based on an examination of all the available evidence, which I shall publish in due course.

Mr. Maples: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to the extent that reductions in real wages encourage employers to employ more people, a similar effect could be created by reducing the employers' national insurance contributions, and that that would be a good deal easier to achieve?

Mr. Lawson: I am not too sure about my hon. Friend's last point about it being easier to achieve that effect. I should have thought that it was also a straightforward matter for employers, particularly those in the private sector, to be concerned about the level of pay settlements for which they are responsible.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Chancellor accept that there is no short-term solution in pay cuts to beat the


market leaders of the world in Japan, Germany, and similar economies, where high pay, high productivity and competitiveness are the rules of the day?

Mr. Lawson: As the hon. Gentleman must know, wage costs per unit of output have been going down in Germany and Japan. If we do not achieve the same type of performance, we shall find things increasingly difficult. One of the elements in the equation is an improvement in productivity. That is something that we have been achieving to a remarkable extent. The other side of the equation—moderation in wage settlements—has so far eluded us.

Mr. John Townend: My right hon. Friend tells the House that it is up to private employers to have wage levels that encourage employment. Is it not therefore important that, without any further delay, the Government should announce that they will abolish wages councils.

Mr. Lawson: I understand my hon. Friend's point. As I said earlier, that is a factor that the Government must take seriously.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Chancellor advocating a reduction in real wages as a serious way of reducing unemployment, or is it simply a debating point? Will he confirm that a return to the unemployment level which the Conservative Government inherited from their predecessors—on his formula— would require a real wage reduction of 13 per cent.? That is very unlikely.

Mr. Lawson: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures on this or anything else. I am not calling for a cut in real wages. I am calling for real wages to go up less rapidly than they have hitherto. That is what I have made clear time and again.

Economic Situation

Mr. Nellist: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the current state of the economy.

Mr. Peter Rees: In spite of the coal strike, GDP rose by 3 per cent. in the year to the second quarter of 1984, inflation was about 5 per cent. and employment was up some quarter of a million.

Mr. Nellist: If the Minister is so confident about the state of the economy, why, within the next few hours, are the Government proposing to introduce regulations in the House to cut housing benefit for up to 16,000 single, striking miners, and tens of thousands of other people who live with relatives? The impact of that, in economic terms, may be a few million pounds, but it will be disastrous for individuals. Does not that type of cut pale into insignificance when compared with the £4·5 billion that the Government have spent trying to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers?

Mr. Rees: I am not aware that the Government have spent any money trying to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers. On housing benefit, the rest of the House, if not the hon. Gentleman, will be aware that claims have been made which were not envisaged when housing benefit was introduced.

Mr. Forman: Would it be possible to make a modest but significant improvement in the state of the economy by implementing, at an early date, the recommendations of the recent Management and Personnel Office report on

Government purchasing, which showed that savings of between £400 million and £1·5 billion could be made if they were followed through?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right. We are considering urgently how those measures could properly and practicably be introduced. Significant economies could be made if those proposals were adopted.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Chief Secretary accept that to cut wages is no way to bring about an economic revival? Does he appreciate how nauseating it is to see well-paid business men on the Conservative Benches advocating the abolition of wages councils? Why does the Chancellor not accept that the wages councils offer minimum protection for the lowest paid in our country?

Mr. Rees: I shall not comment on the hon. Gentleman's nausea. He has his own tastes and approach to these problems. I suspect that those of my hon. Friends who have been advocating that course feel that it would enable people who are at present excluded to be priced back into employment.

Occupational Pension Funds

Mr. Waller: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to change the tax treatment of contributions to occupational pension funds.

Mr. Lawson: I am well aware of the speculation on this subject, which I can assure my hon. Friend did not emanate from Treasury Ministers. As my hon. Friend also knows, it has not normally been the practice of any Chancellor to comment on pre-Budget speculation.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who wish to provide for their own retirement should not in any way be deterred from doing so? Does he accept that it is important for those at work to be able to plan with reasonable certainty?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend will understand that I can neither confirm nor deny rumours about the contents of my Budget. I am concerned, however, about reports that some people may be contemplating premature retirement on the basis of rumours about the tax treatment of pension lump sums. I can assure the House that there is no reason for anyone to retire early on account of such rumours. This Government would not propose and the House would not accept retrospective legislation of that kind.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that his answer will give some encouragement to those who might be making their decisions in such a way as to cover themselves against a legislative change that is contrary to what he intends? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the task of the tax reformer is a very difficult one? If he gets it wrong he is in difficulty, and even if he gets it right the benefit will accrue only to his successor— and it is very unlikely that he will get this one right?

Mr. Lawson: There is a kernel of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman says. The task of the tax reformer is indeed a very difficult one.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be welcome, at least on the Government Benches? Does he agree that if there is any


change in the tax arrangements for pension funds, and if the pension that has been promised is to be maintained, contributions to the fund must inevitably increase? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were an increase in contributions that would add to the unit cost of labour, which is contrary to Conservative policy?

Mr. Lawson: I have noted carefully what my hon. Friend has said. He will understand, as an experienced Member of the House of Commons — and being particularly experienced in financial and budgetary matters — that it is impossible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to confirm or deny or comment in any way on rumours as to what may or may not be in a forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Kirkwood: From the Liberal Benches I concur with the welcome that has been given to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He has probably gone as far as he can go. If I am asked by my local police, for example, whether they should retire early to avoid tax, am I secure in saying no?

Mr. Lawson: Yes.

Mr. Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when some of us first entered public life it was one of the prime aims of the Conservative party to ensure that as many people as possible in the years ahead would come to enjoy two pensions — the state pension and an occupational pension? Enormous improvements have been made in that respect in the past 25 years. Will my right hon. Friend be careful to take no steps that will reverse that trend?

Mr. Lawson: On this occasion I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He knows that I do not agree with him on every occasion. I, too, want to see a further expansion of private occupational pensions. That is the policy of the Government as a whole, and it is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has put forward his proposals on personal portable pensions.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have recognised that many people on modest occupational pensions are seriously alarmed at reports of his proposals. When he says that there will be no retrospective legislation, is he saying that those who are currently in occupational pension schemes will not have their position changed, or is he simply saying that any such proposals would not be retrospective to the coming Budget?

Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman studies the Official Report tomorrow, he will see precisely what I said.

Mr. McCrindle: May I press my right hon. Friend to go a little further than his welcome statement of a few minutes ago? As the tax-free lump sum under pension schemes is frequently seen as a nest-egg by millions of people, and as plans are made well in advance with regard to the use of the nest-egg, would it not relieve a great deal of anxiety if, in addition to what he has told us this afternoon, my right hon. Friend were able to say that any tax change would apply only to membership of pension schemes which began after the presentation of his Budget?

Mr. Lawson: I have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said. I am grateful to him for the words of welcome with which he began his question.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that many people on modest incomes have been making provision for retirement along these lines and would welcome a categorical statement now, not with-standing the convention of not saying things in advance of the Budget? In this instance, surely there is every case for saying categorically that such a scheme will not go forward.

Mr. Lawson: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that many people would welcome categorical statements about several matters in advance of the Budget, but, for the reasons that are well known and well hallowed, I shall not make any such statements. However, there was a particular problem in this case, in that there was a possibility that people might take premature retirement on the basis of the premise of retrospective legislation taking effect, which was wholly false. I should not like to see that happen. That is why I made my statement, which will be important to many people in both the private sector and public services.

Mr. Higgins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's condemnation of retrospective legislation, but does he agree that it would also be retrospective if changes were made in future taxation of lump sum pensions in relation to contributions that had been made in the past?

Mr. Lawson: I am not quite sure of the precise point that my right hon. Friend is making—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but I think that the answer is yes.

Mr. Hattersley: In his carefully prepared and read supplementary answer, the Chancellor promised no retrospection in this particular. He must know—or at least he should know — that what has caused the uncertainty, particularly in the public service, and the early retirement, is not the fear of retrospection, but the fear that the new regulations will be applied for a period after the Budget. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to end that uncertainty now, or is he prepared to see early retirements and the damage caused thereby going on?

Mr. Lawson: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the point. The point is that several people were concerned that if they retired after the Budget they would be disadvantaged, as compared with retiring before the Budget. Therefore, they sought to retire prematurely. The assurance that I have given them means that they no longer have to make that disposition of their affairs.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what proportion of total public expenditure in 1984–85 will be represented by capital investment programmes.

Mr. Peter Rees: Total capital spending by the public sector in 1984–85 is expected to be about one fifth of the public expenditure planning total.

Mr. Chapman: Is that proportion planned to decline in the next financial year and, if so, will it be in the construction and civil engineering sector of the planned capital investment programme? If so, by how much?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend must await the table that we shall produce in the public expenditure White Paper, which mirrors table 1.13 in the previous public expenditure White Paper. Let me assure my hon. Friend and the House that the latest Department of Trade and Industry investment survey suggests a 10 per cent. increase and, indeed, a new high in construction and service industry investment in 1984 and a 9 per cent. increase in 1985.

Oil Revenues

Mr. Gordon Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much more he expects to receive in oil revenues in the current year as a result of changes in the sterling-dollar exchange rate in 1984.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): The autumn statement forecast of total tax take from the North sea in 1984–85 is £12 billion, £1·8 billion higher than expected earlier this year. Most of that increase is attributable to changes in the sterling-dollar exchange rate.

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the fall in the pound and the rise in oil revenues is the only reason why the Government can contemplate tax cuts in the next Budget? Now that the Minister has this windfall from oil revenues to spend, will he confirm that public investment of those revenues could create up to 150,000 jobs throughout this country?

Mr. Moore: No, Sir, I shall not confirm the premise on which the hon. Gentleman makes his point. The figures that I gave reflect one facet of many aspects of the autumn statement. One cannot take just that one facet in isolation and extrapolate such conclusions from it, as the hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Blair: Does the Minister realise that, having confessed that this windfall from North sea oil has occurred, he cannot escape the language of choice and priority? When will the Government choose to make the unemployed their priority?

Mr. Moore: There is no confession, but there should be recognition in all parts of the House of the unbelievable bounty that the nation has received because of the successful investment, essentially by the private sector, in the North sea, and the benefits and jobs accruing from that.

Small Businesses

Mr. Fallon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take further steps to reduce the tax burden on small businesses.

Mr. Moore: The Government have already provided substantial help to small businesses through tax reductions and other measures designed to encourage their growth. In particular, the tax reliefs available in the business expansion scheme enabled more than 400 small companies to raise about £80 million of new equity in 1983–84. I hope that further reductions in taxation will also be of benefit to small businesses.

Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that small rather than large businesses will be the major source of new jobs in the future? Will he confirm the rumour that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor intends to offer a continuing programme of tax relief to small businesses?

Mr. Moore: I am delighted at my hon. Friend's welcome for the Government's measures in relation to small businesses, but big businesses must also be successful to increase employment. I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will seek in the Budget to help employment in small and large businesses alike through the tax system.

Mr. Stephen Ross: As the greatest difficulty faced by small businesses is high interest rates, what plans have the Government to lower interest rates for small businesses? Will they introduce a differential, with lower rates for small businesses to give them a chance of succeeding?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that lower interest rates help. The reduction from more than 16 per cent. when the Government took office to 9½ per cent. today is a clear sign of our success. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to press upon the Government demands for further public expenditure, which would drive interest rates up and deter small businesses.

Children's Shoes (VAT)

Mr. Roger King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the possible introduction of value added tax on children's shoes.

Mr. Hayhoe: Treasury Ministers have received some 250 letters.

Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that no commitment can be made one way or the other, but will he note that for many families, especially those on low incomes, the imposition of VAT on children's shoes would represent a real cost to their living standards? [Interruption.]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Wakeham): took his seat.

Mr. Hayhoe: The whole House has shown how very pleased it is to see my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in his place at Treasury Question Time. I am afraid that I have forgotten what the supplementary question was.

Mr. Speaker: I echo the Minister's statement. I, too, have forgotten the supplementary question.

Departmental Services (Privatisation)

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current estimated savings for 1984–85 as a result of privatisation schemes for which his Department is responsible.

Mr. Moore: The Treasury is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's privatisation programme. Special sales of assets receipts this year should be not less than £2 billion, but the overall benefit to the economy in terms of increased efficiency and better services will be far greater than this.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend comment on yesterday's radio statement by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who said that a Labour Government would seek to renationalise British Telecom?

Mr. Moore: My attention was drawn to that broadcast. The Opposition clearly have an innate desire to stay firmly in opposition and have no interest in Government.

Books and Periodicals (VAT)

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his consideration of the possible imposition of value added tax on books, magazines and newspapers.

Mr. Hayhoe: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of many of the major newspapers is already beyond many millions of people? Is he also aware that if VAT is introduced, as has been suggested, many local newspapers will be put out of business and many local communities denied the knowledge that they provide?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have met a deputation from the Newspaper Society, which made many of those points in greater detail. The Government are well aware of the representations that are being made, and those representations will be given careful consideration.

Publishers' Association

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet met the Publishers' Association or its representatives to discuss his forthcoming Budget; and what was discussed.

Mr. Hayhoe: No, Sir.

Mr. Adley: May I assume that my right hon. Friend, with his usual courtesy, would be willing to meet them if requested?

Mr. Hayhoe: I think that the arrangements have been made and a date has been fixed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Lewis: What forecast has the right hon. Lady made of a reduction in unemployment, and when is such a reduction likely to take place?

The Prime Minister: I follow the example of successive Ministers and Prime Ministers in not making forecasts about the rate of unemployment.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that an order for the biggest oil rig ever to be built has been obtained on Clydebank? Is it not true that that has happened because the firm concerned has had a 12-year strike-free record? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result, the firm will now be able to take on 500 men?

The Prime Minister: I have noted that the oil rig order has gone to that shipyard. I congratulate the yard on its record and on winning the order. I hope that others will take the hint that strikes destroy jobs and that a good working record wins new orders.

Mr. Hattersley: First, may I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury back to his place on the Treasury Bench? The right hon. Gentleman represents — indeed, personifies — the triumph of democracy over terrorism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister whether she has read the three surveys published today, including one based on the Treasury's own model and one from the London Business School, previously the fount of all economic wisdom? Those surveys prove that increases in public investment are by far the most effective way of reducing unemployment. Will the right hon. Lady now respond to the demands from both sides of the House and accept that whatever additions can be made to public expenditure in the spring will be used not for cutting taxation but for reducing the wholly unacceptable level of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept some of the findings of those three reports or the right hon. Gentleman's specific description of them. Other findings point to other conclusions. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we realise by now that one cannot spend one's way out of recession. That has been tried before. It leads to higher inflation and ultimately to higher unemployment. There are some 12 million taxpayers with an income of £8,000 a year or less. They, too, have a right to look to the Government to raise thresholds so that they pay less tax. They will never get equity from Labour; they will get it only from us.

Mr. Hattersley: It should be obvious even to the Prime Minister that money invested directly in the United Kingdom is more likely to create jobs than money devoted to increasing consumption, which, by its nature, is likely to result in higher imports and to create jobs abroad. On the Labour side of the House and, I believe, widely throughout the country, it is understood that the right hon. Lady's obsession with a cut in direct taxes is matched and mirrored by the increased indirect taxation that has more than compensated for the reduction in that particular over the past five years.
Most important of all, as the Prime Minister has chosen the high unemployment option, are we to be relieved from now on of the lowered voice and the bogus compassion? The truth is that the Prime Minister and the Government choose high unemployment. That is the message that should be given to the country.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Increasing infrastructure is not a cost-effective way in which to increase the number of jobs. The cost per job through increasing infrastructure can vary from £35,000 to £55,000. It is an expensive method, which tends to lead to a lot of hire of plant but not much hire of men. Reduction of tax can lead to extra jobs, as it leads to extra demand. The right hon. Gentleman's thesis that investment always leads to purchases from home sources while reduction of tax leads to purchases from abroad is not correct. In an age of specialisation, much of the investment in equipment and machinery goes abroad.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In her worthy enthusiasm for reducing unemployment, will my right hon. Friend concentrate on the unincorporated sector of the self-employed and bring home to many of her Ministers the fact that it is not just reducing tax rates but reducing the burden of non-productive administrative work—dealing with tax returns such as VAT and national insurance — that discourages them from taking on new employees?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are still many restrictions that inhibit the self-employed from taking on more employees and inhibit small businesses from taking on extra people. Each of them raises difficult issues, but we are examining the regulations. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry hope to bring proposals before the House.

Dr. Owen: We on the alliance Benches also welcome the Patronage Secretary, although he will understand our not wishing him great success, as we hope that the rebellions will continue at the pace that has been set during the past few months. The Prime Minister is rumoured in the press now to be contemplating increased expenditure on the community programme and a restructuring of employees' insurance contributions. Why should we wait for the Budget? Many hundreds of thousands of people want action, and now. Why not action this day?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would know that there is a time for public expenditure surveys and a time for the Budget. I confess that there are many occasions when I wish that they happened together so that the choices that have to be made were more clearly put. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio are seeing whether we can better spend the £2 billion that we spend on special employment measures.

Mr. Budgen: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Budgen: In the discussions about the BBC's licence fee, will my right hon. Friend recognise that introductin of advertising would change the nature of the BBC? Will she also examine carefully the recent introduction of early morning television and BBC local radio stations? Will she please ask the BBC why it cannot concentrate on those things that are most important to it?

The Prime Minister: I think that a number of people will agree with my hon. Friend and wonder why the BBC has to take on so many new programmes when their needs can be fulfilled by other programmes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has to take into account the fact that the BBC licence fee is a sort of compulsory levy on the television viewer, irrespective of whether he watches BBC programmes a great deal. He will wish to balance the needs of the BBC with the interests of the licence fee payer. For that, he will need to take many things into account, but I doubt whether, this time, he will consider the introduction of advertising, although, in the longer term, we might have to consider other methods of raising the requisite revenue for the BBC.

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport has written a letter to all Conservative Members of Parliament promising them preferential treatment from himself, his Department and his civil servants in dealing with parliamentary inquiries — [Interruption.] — from their constituents? Has that letter been written with the authority or knowledge of the Prime Minister? If so, does it mark a change of policy, in that the Government are prepared to use Government funds to advance the cause of the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: I do not know of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and there seems to be a good deal of dissent in the House to the interpretation that he gave of it. Inquiries from all Members of Parliament are dealt with expeditiously and courteously.

Mr. Marland: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of our Common Market partners are seeking to use bogus methods to prevent our exports penetrating their markets? Will she take this opportunity to reassure our exporters, be they in industry, agriculture or commerce, that she will use her best offices to make sure that our exporters can compete in Europe on equal terms?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the purpose of the Dooge committee of the Common Market. We are urging the completion of the internal market. The Common Market treaty prohibits barriers to trade, and my hon. Friend will have special reason to know of the success of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in getting rid of the barriers to the importation of whisky by Italy—something on which he is to be congratulated.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lloyd: Knowing that the Prime Minister places a high priority on conforming to the letter of the law, will she join me in condemning the Conservative-controlled Trafford borough council, which is refusing to conform with both the spirit and the letter of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act by not providing adaptations for handicapped people until July next year? Will she have a quiet word with the Secretary of State for Social Services and ask him to use his powers to make that council conform?

The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that in that Act there is a good deal of discretion as to how it is applied. It is not absolutely mandatory. Any question arising from the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be for me but would be a matter for the courts to decide.

Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend recall that Mr. Justice Glidewell, the inquiry inspector into the fourth terminal at Heathrow, said that if permission were granted for that it would be essential for the Government to reiterate that there would be neither a fifth terminal nor any other major expansion of Heathrow? Do the Government accept that Mr. Justice Glidewell was a distinguished inquiry inspector, whose views should carry at least as much weight as those of Mr. Graham Eyre?

The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's very special interest in this matter. He will also recognise that, as the inspector's report is in front of us, I am unable to do other than note his question.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fisher: In respect of the right hon. Lady's reply to me on Tuesday, does she agree that she gave a very good answer to a question that I did not ask? Will she now answer that question and say whether she thinks it sensible and reasonable to include in the costs apportioned to pits when they close costs that will continue for years afterwards, whether or not a pit closes? Will she be good enough to answer that question?

The Prime Minister: I am not an expert on accountancy—[Interruption.]—and neither, I believe, is the hon. Gentleman. It is not for me or for him to distinguish between, or pontificate upon, different specific methods of accountancy. The National Coal Board cost taxpayers £1·3 billion last year. That is not a matter of accountancy, but something that taxpayers have to find. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no need for a subsidy for the coal industry, his remarks are most welcome.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most unpopular acts that the Government can commit is the transfer of additional resources to the European Community, with the loss of sovereignty that such an act would entail?

The Prime Minister: The decision to join the EC was made many years ago. I believe that it is and remains in the interests of the United Kingdom to remain part of that

Community and to make a great success of it. It gives us tremendous opportunities in trade, and, when the internal market is complete, it will give our financial and insurance services greater opportunities than they have now.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall follow my usual practice. In the interests of the whole House, I shall take points of order now only if they arise directly from questions.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the answer to the question I put to the Prime Minister when, in effect, she denied the existence of the letter to which I referred. Can you advise me how I can pursue this matter? I believe that it is clear that the rules of the House have been breached by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. Preferential treatment has been promised to Conservative Members in a matter of vital importance to all hon. Members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. Will you, Mr. Speaker, advise me how that matter is best pursued?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not seen this letter. I cannot be responsible for letters that Ministers write to hon. Members.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister seemed to indicate in her reply to my hon. Friend that the letter might be capable of different interpretations, would it not clear the atmosphere if she and the Government gave authority for it to be printed in Hansard?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we ask you how we can protect the House when there is a clear indication that the facilities of a Ministry are being used in a specific political way? As the Leader of the House is present, may we ask him to make a statement about whether it is now the intention of the Conservative party to use all the facilities of the Civil Service to promulgate its own highly individual and extremely prejudiced views?

Mr. Robert Atkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider this matter, can you also advise the House how I and other Lancashire colleagues can raise the fact that the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council is spending £134,000 of ratepayers' money—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House can go on for ever on a subject such as this. It is plainly not a matter for me.

Business of the House

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 DECEMBER — Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Afterwards, motions on the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) orders.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY I8 DECEMBER—Estimates day (1st Allotted Day). Consideration of the following Estimate: Class IV, Vote 5 (Industrial Support (Department of Energy)) The appropriate report will be shown on the Order Paper as relevant. The house will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the winter Supplementary Estimates.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
Debate on European Community documents on transport measures.
The relevant numbers will appear in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY I9 DECEMBER — Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
THURSDAY 20 DECEMBER — Debate On a motion to take note of the review by Sir George Baker, Cmnd. 9222.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order.
FRIDAY 2I DECEMBER—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment until Wednesday 9 January 1985.

[Debate on Road Transport Measures on 18 December
1984
Relevant Documents

a. 4088/79 Draft directive on weights of heavy goods vehicles.
b. 9292/81 Amendment to draft directive on weights of heavy goods vehicles.
c. 9508/84 Report on weights of heavy goods vehicles.
d. Unnumbered draft directive submitted by Department of Transport on 13 December 1984.

Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee

a. HC 10-xxii (1978–79) para. 4 and HC 159-i (1979–80) para. 4
b. HC 21-i (1981–82) para. 4.
c. HC 5-iv (1984–85) para. 5.

Estimates Day: 4th Report Select Committee on Energy 1984–85 in respect of British National Oil Corporation H/C 126.]

Mr. Hattersley: The Leader of the House will know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received much correspondence about the threatened closure of post offices. Can public anxiety be assuaged in some way by an announcement that we shall have a debate on this subject in the early part of the new year?
The Leader of the House will recall that it is 10 months since the publication of the Government's Green Paper on

the long-term proposals or alternatives for public expenditure. We were promised a debate on that Green paper. May we have such a debate before and separated from next year's White Paper on public expenditure, and sufficiently early in the year to ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can take part without taking refuge in the impending Budget?

Mr. Biffen: The possibility of a debate or a statement on post offices, the debates that we shall have early next year on economic affairs, and the possibility of a debate on alternatives in public expenditure can be reasonably pursued through the usual channels.

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend provide time in the not-too-distant future for a debate on BBC financing? Contrary to the view that was expressed during Prime Minister's Question Time, several of us believe that an element of advertising for the BBC would be desirable. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are extremely worried that the BBC may obtain a considerable increase in its licence fee, which would be unacceptable to many of us?

Mr. Biffen: I am very much aware of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend and I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The fee must secure approval from Parliament, possibly through the negative procedure.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister's memory failed her when she replied today to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970? The Act places clear and mandatory duties on local authorities, as I made clear in a reply in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 22 March 1978. Does the Leader of the House agree that it does the reputation of the House no good for right hon. and hon. Members to be misled in that way? Will he arrange for the Prime Minister to apologise to my hon. Friend and give him a proper answer next week?

Mr. Biffen: I pay proper respect to the right hon. Gentleman as the author of the legislation, but I match that with an assertion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister needs no lessons in courtesy to the House. I shall draw her attention to the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend consider a matter that is causing increasing anxiety for the orderly progress of business in the House? I refer to Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions and European Community questions. Yesterday, 77 questions were set down for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to be answered in 35 minutes, and only nine were answered; six questions were down for EC matters and all were answered in 20 minutes. I have raised this point previously, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider it urgently because the position is becoming absurd. I strongly suggest that the EC element be abolished and that we have one hour for Foreign and Commonwealth questions.

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's question. This is a matter for the usual channels. I shall ensure that the usual channels are informed of the anxiety


that has been expressed and the view that all foreign countries should be treated as equally foreign for the purposes of Question Time.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: May I ask the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on the De Lorean affair? The Public Accounts Committee considered it to be one of the greatest abuses of public money that we have seen for very many years. Since there are a number of political aspects to this matter which the Public Accounts Committee is not really fitted to discuss, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that there is a debate to dispose of it at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Biffen: I am in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman. I very much hope that we can continue that correspondence and come to an amicable conclusion.

Mr. John Butterfill: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 36, the case for a blindness allowance, which stands in my name and which has been signed by no fewer than 146 hon. Members of all parties?
[That this House, whilst appreciating all that has been done for the blind by this and previous governments, wishes to remind the Government of the acceptance by successive Ministers of the case for a blindness allowance; and, in particular, the statement by the then Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled (the Right honourable Member for Daventry) on 24th July 1979 that the case for an income in the form of a blindness allowance is unanswerable on its merits; points out to the Government that the blind do not normally qualify for mobility, invalidity, attendance or other allowances, unless suffering from a second disability; and calls upon the Government to take immediate action to replace the existing range of benefits available to the blind with a means-tested blindness allowance.]
A similar motion standing in the name of another hon. Member has been signed by no fewer than 88 hon. Members. This clearly demonstrates a very high degree of concern on the subject among hon. Members. Will my right hon. Friend therefore find time for an early debate on the blindness allowance?

Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once the importance of the subject and the large number of signatories to the early-day motions mentioned by my hon. Friend. On this occasion I shall content myself by referring my hon. Friend to the Adjournment debates which will take place after the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill next Wednesday.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Leader of the House make specific provision for us to debate the motions relating to orders on regional industrial development which have been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends? Could he also arrange for a statement to be made next week by transport Ministers so that they can make it clear that they will follow the practice, which the Leader of the House always follows, of treating all hon. Members with equal courtesy rather than offering to reply "personally more quickly than I would normally be able to do" to members of his own party?

Mr. Biffen: The first point which the hon. Member makes relates to business which will be before the House after we return from the Christmas Recess. I shall be in touch with the hon. Member on that point. As for his

second point, I believe that the transport Ministers are the embodiment of courtesy. I shall relay to them the points which have been made this afternoon.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the considerable concern which has been expressed about the quite incredible suggestion of the BBC to shove up the licence fee by 41 per cent. to £65? Given the reluctance of that state-owned leviathan to be financed in any way other than by a compulsory tax and taking into account the additional costs associated with the licence, such as detector vans, the courts, the licensing authority and all the other paraphernalia associated with it, will my right hon. Friend please make time available, long before we have to vote on the amounts to be given to the BBC, for a debate upon how the BBC should be financed in the future?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the points which have been put very powerfully by my hon. Friend. As I have said. I shall refer those points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House confirm that on Wednesday next Foreign Office Ministers intend to lay an order—the Consular Fees (Amendment) (No. 3) Order—to give effect to a proposal which was announced on 22 November to introduce fees for entry certificates? As this is conveniently the day after a meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, will the Leader of the House talk to his colleagues in the Foreign Office and, in view of the widespread concern, ensure that if they are determined to pursue this matter they will do so by means of a parliamentary procedure which is subject to approval or annulment by this House?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into the matter and will be in touch with the Foreign Office, as requested by the hon. Gentleman. As for the widespread concern which the hon. Gentleman alleges to exist, he may be persuaded to take such advantage as there is of the Adjournment debates which will follow the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the BMA is now behaving as badly as the drug companies over the Government's proposed limited drug list? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made next week in the House by the Minister for Health so that he can dispel the misinformation which is being peddled and remind the country that doctors all over Europe, and hundreds of doctors in our own hospitals, are prescribing generically, and off a limited list, and that if the BMA genuinely wants to help patients it should consult the Government in order to make sure that the limited list, when finalised, is as comprehensive as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I agree that a great deal of counter-productive lobbying is taking place on this issue. l shall refer my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.

Mr. Don Dixon: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 215 on the closure of the BSC mill in Jarrow, which will throw 246 men on to the dole?
[That this House urges the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not to give approval to the formation of the


new company named United Merchant Bar plc in which 75 per cent. of the equity will be owned by Caparo Industries and 25 per cent. by the British Steel Corporation, since this plan involves the closure of the Jarrow (Tyne and Wear) and Monks Hall (Warrington) Mills, making 500 employees redundant in areas of high unemployment, and also means that the British Steel Corporation will have only a minority share which could lead to an increase of imports and an adverse effect on the balance of payments; and urges that more investment should be made in the Jarrow and Monks Hall Mills to ensure their future competitiveness and their survival.]
Bearing in mind that 100,000 jobs have been lost in the northern region since 1979 and that we had a statement from the Government last week to the effect that regional grants will be cut by £300 million, may we have an early debate on the subject?

Mr. Biffen: Time will be provided for a debate on regional employment shortly after we return from the Christmas Recess. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring his constituency problem before the House, I suggest that he uses the advantages provided after the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that there were no fewer than 13 documents to be discussed in Tuesday's European debate but there was time for only 10 Back Benchers to speak. Will he undertake that if we have important EEC matters to discuss in future, as we may, there will be adequate time for those debates? I am sure that he would not wish us to be subjected to unfettered dictatorship from Brussels.

Mr. Biffen: As long as my hon. Friend is around, he will be a reasonable protection against that spectre. I shall take account of what he says and, in striking the balance that we have to strike between competing claims, I will try to ensure that we have adequate time to deal with these important subjects.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the fact that in the Oxpring community near Barnsley 2,500 gallons of petroleum have been leaked into the river Don and that wildlife has ceased to exist along 2·5 miles of that river and that all the fishing has gone in that area? There is an urgent need for cleaning, restocking and compensation.

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly fulfil the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what has happened about the proposal to pay a further £120 million to the EEC to help finance its overspend in 1984? Does he agree that even if, contrary to all the practice that he fought for in the past, the House is not allowed to vote on the issue as a matter of substantive legislation, there ought at least to be a full debate in prime time so that the full constitutional and financial issues can be properly considered?

Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that my hon. Friend must exercise his generous patience a little longer. Then he can assess to what extent his anxiety has been met.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Leader of the House take a slightly less laid-back attitude to the letter, issued by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport? It would be bad enough if the letter promised preferential treatment for Conservative Back Benchers on constituency business, but it refers to political speeches made by Conservative Members at weekends. It would be intolerable if the Department of Transport were used as an adjunct of the Tory party and set against the rights of hon. Members who have serious constituency problems. Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, ensure that a statement is made by himself or by the Secretary of State for Transport to clear up this serious matter?

Mr. Biffen: I have not seen the letter, so I have made no comment on it. I will certainly not stand here and engage in a quick reading course. The hon. Member who first raised the issue suggested that it breached the rules of the House, and that is something on which only the Chair can rule.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that time is given for a Government statement on the visit of Mr. Gorbachev particularly to cover the point of whether or not the Government have detected any change or shift in the Soviet's understanding of the term "peaceful co-existence", away from the mere absence of war in an atmosphere of antagonistic tolerance towards a mood of co-operation and development under which we may together achieve verifiable arms control and the curbing of nuclear proliferation and international terrorism, and thereby divert economic resources to the betterment of mankind?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises important points, and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange with his hon. Friend in the Ministry of Transport to send me a similar letter to that which he sent on 30 November to his colleagues so that when I hear from my constituents about these matters, I can more easily demolish the Minister's arguments?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention the points that have been raised about this letter, because clearly there is concern in the Chamber that he should know of that interest.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give thought to the fact that some 80 per cent. of our people are said never to read a book? Will he respond to questions that came up both in Treasury questions and in early-day motion 196, which by today had been signed by 189 hon. Members?
[That this House requests Her Majesty's Government not to impose value-added tax on books.]
Will he also bear in mind that Dr. Johnson said that a well-read man is the best-educated man, and arrange for a debate so that hon. Members on both sides can make clear their opposition to the imposition of VAT on books?

Mr. Biffen: There is not much that I can add to the interesting and comprehensive exchange that took place on this matter in Treasury questions earlier today.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman either confirm or deny that during next week's business it is the Government's intention to introduce regulations to amend the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 to deny up to 16,000 single striking miners the right to housing benefit if they pay rent to relatives and to affect tens of thousands of other people in a similar position? If that happens next week, will it not demonstrate the Prime Minister's obsessiveness to the point of insanity with her attacks on miners, and show the effect that her pursuit of the NUM will have on tens of thousands of other people?

Mr. Biffen: That is not set down as business of the House next week, but I shall look into the matter and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report in The Times today about a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on VAT for new house building, and the fact that VAT was not to be applied to that category? Should there not now be an opportunity for the unrest and concern that is felt in the country about the possible imposition of VAT on newspapers, books, periodicals, children's clothes and shoes to be alleviated by a statement before Christmas? The public need to know about this, because there is great concern on it. There has already today been a useful hint on retirement pensions. Could we not now have another hint from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Biffen: No. I think that it is time for a close season, and Treasury questions today dealt satisfactorily with this matter.

Mr. Robert Parry: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 195 concerning the death or killing of Mrs. Nora McCabe, which is supported by 79 hon. Members?
[That this House congratulates Yorkshire Television for making the programme on the killing of Norah McCabe; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to set up a public inquiry to look fully into the circumstances surrounding the shooting and to state what action has been taken against those responsible for the death of this young mother.]
In view of the concern expressed by the House, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to institute a public inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of this young woman?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to this point and to the request for an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman may wish to extend his argument somewhat if he is fortunate enough to obtain an Adjournment debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Francis Maude: Will my right hon. Friend note that, in view of the widespread concern felt in all parts of the House, it is essential that a full debate on the financing of the BBC should take place in the very near future, and particularly before the decision on the increase in the licence fee is taken, so that the BBC may fully understand that it will be subject to the most stringent financial discipline?

Mr. Biffen: Two of my hon. Friends have already asked questions on that point, and I can only repeat that I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to it.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: May I refer the Leader of the House to the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in which he used the word "alleged" concern? May I tell him that it is more than "alleged" concern? Has he yet been able to digest the terms of early-day motion 200, which is still gathering signatures?
[That this House requests a reconsideration of a proposal made on 22nd November to introduce, for the first time, a charge for entry certificates for Commonwealth citizens; and points out that refusal of an entrance certificate, simply because the fee cannot be paid, would not be lawful under the Immigration Act 1971.]
Although at present the signatures belong solely to Opposition Members, we could equally well gather signatures from Conservative Members.
The proposed charge for entry certificates represents an innovation for Commonwealth citizens. People who have a lawful right to come to Britain from countries such as Bangladesh, including dependent relatives, already face long delays without this extra imposition. I hope that the Leader of the House will pass on that message to the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, as arguments are probably going on now as a result of the protests, will the right hon. Gentleman get the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to withdraw his proposal of 22 November?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the hon. Gentleman s point and I have already promised that I will refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the anxieties expressed. Those anxieties will, of course, have been reinforced by the points that have just been made.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will have heard all the demands for a debate on the alleged discrepancies in accounting with regard to mines that are scheduled for closure. Has he seen early-day motion 58, which suggests that the NCB could offer the mines scheduled for closure to the NUM?
[That this House, concerned at the possible adverse effect the strike in the coal fields may have for job prospects in the coal industry and other related industries, recognises that the miners' leaders are concerned over planned pit closures, and calls upon the Government to urge the National Coal Board to draw up plans to offer to miners in pits scheduled for closure the opportunity to continue to work their own pits as mineworker cooperatives and to offer the pits complete with mining equipment at a peppercorn rent and, in the event of the miners declining, to offer the private sector the same mines at a peppercorn rent.]
If the NCB offered those mines to the NUM, Mr. Arthur Scargill and his friends could show clearly their confidence in them by taking them over.

Mr. Biffen: I thought that that was a well-judged contribution to our debate, and I am happy to have this opportunity to acknowledge it.

Mr. Donald Coleman: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 128 and the relevant amendments to it concerning the death grant?
[That this House regards the present level of death grant at £30 for an adult man or woman born after 1894 as being totally inadequate; and calls for an increase in the grant to a level of at least £350.]
[As amendments to the proposed motion, in line 2, leave out from 'for' to end and add `a substantial grant'; in line 3, at end add `in this Session of Parliament' .]
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this issue has often been raised in the House. When will the Government make a statement about their intentions? It is a serious matter for old people, and delay for so long is a disgrace.

Mr. Biffen: I understand that the matter is still before a Government committee that is formulating policy, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point made about the importance of arriving at a speedy decision.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on the effects of the Government's rate-capping proposals on less-well-off people, including the 100,000 people in the city of Leicester who were identified by a recent survey as living in the most adverse conditions? Is he aware that the most swingeing proposals in the country for rate capping have just been made for the city of Leicester, which will impose savage, vicious and wicked cuts on the services that every citizen requires? May we have a debate on the issue before it is too late?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that the rate limitation orders will require a debate in the House, and that will take place reasonably soon. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have a chance to make his powerful speech then.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Scotland—who is not a million miles away —when he intends to make a statement to the House on the disruption to schools in Ayrshire that has been caused by the provocative action of the Scottish region of the NCB and which has been testified to by impartial officials of Strathclyde regional council? That action has resulted in the stoppage of coal to one third of Ayrshire schools. Those schools are now closed and some of them may be closed in the new year. Indeed, some of them are in the Secretary of State's constituency, although he shows no apparent concern about that. When will we have a statement? When will this Scottish issue be given the degree of concern that it would attract if it were happening in the capital?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, sitting at my left elbow, will have heard every word of that powerful tirade. Doubtless he will react appropriately.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the concern expressed by Tories about the upholding of the law for miners and other working-class people, will the

right hon. Gentleman arrange for a list to be placed in the Library of all Tory Members and any others who hold directorships and consultancies associated with firms trading on Sundays? To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, would not that be a good idea? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to have a word with her husband, who has a long-standing connection with Halfords, to find out whether he approves of that firm breaking the law?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot arrange for such a list to be made available. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to say that I deplore the breaking of the law on Sunday trading.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the rules of engagement for soldiers at military installations are issued on so-called pink cards? Is he further aware that the rules of engagement have recently been changed to allow soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians and, to go even further than that, to shoot dead an unarmed civilian in the back as he runs away from the establishment? Is it not worrying and outrageous that the Secretary of State for Defence has not been to the House to explain this matter?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: In the light of the publication this week of the report on Stansted, because of the great anxiety in the north of England about that development and because the Secretary of State for Transport has promised a debate on the matter, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when there will be such a debate so that we can, we hope, allay the fears of those who want to see the development of regional airports?

Mr. Biffen: Obviously the debate should take place reasonably soon. A number of hon. Members have spoken of their anxiety that a reasonable amount of time should be allowed to cope with the massive amount of reading implicit in the report.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the Leader of the House think that there should be an urgent and early debate on foreign affairs, considering the tense position in central America, the current position in South Africa and the troubles in Sri Lanka, with which the Government have close links? Should not these matters be debated in the House so that we can find out the Government's attitude towards the peace process in central America and other areas?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the importance that many hon. Members attach to those aspects of foreign affairs. I confess that there is no early prospect of a full debate on foreign affairs in Government time. Other opportunities are available to the hon. Gentleman, especially at this time of year, and I suggest that he tries his luck with them.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday 19 December.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am. on Tuesday 18 December. A list showing the subjects and times will be published later that day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 21 December up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm. on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Public Expenditure and Rate Support Grant (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement about public expenditure allocations and the rate support grant settlement for Scotland for 1985–86.
Total expenditure on the programmes within my responsibility for 1985–86 will be £7,158 million. The figure is broadly the same as that published in the 1984 public expenditure White Paper earlier this year and shows that the Government remain determined to keep public expenditure within planned limits. An annotated table giving the allocations for each service is available in the Vote Office and I am arranging for it to be published in the Official Report.
In allocating my total sum I have continued to give priority to spending on the Health Service. I plan to increase cash provision for the NHS in Scotland by £94 million more than the expected level of expenditure on the service this year. Of this, some £75 million will go to the health boards' hospital and community health services programme and associated centrally managed services, where cash provision will be increased by 5·5 per cent. more than expected expenditure this year and 1 per cent. more than the forecast level of inflation. That should enable boards to find the resources that they need for pay and price increases and for the expansion of services to meet demand from demographic change.
Law and order provision will be sufficient to meet the cost of the police service with a modest increase in manpower to meet priority requirements and to allow for a further 150 prison officers by 1 April 1986.
For housing I have increased total net provision by £5 million over the White Paper level to £598 million. This allows for gross capital spending of £568 million when estimated capital receipts are added to net capital provision of £392 million. To ensure that new investment is not, as this year, sacrificed to subsidise current expenditure, I am proposing to use my new power to limit rate fund contributions to require local authorities to reduce these contributions to £90 million. This enables me to increase capital spending on authorities' own stock to facilitate action on problems such as dampness, condensation and defective housing. I am also making additional resources available for tackling those problems. The combined increase in local authorities' HRA block allocations is £43 million.
The provision which I have made for education takes account of the changes I announced last week on student awards and includes £2·1 million as the first element of the recently announced increased expenditure on the central institutions. Improved academic staffing and a reinforcement of non-academic staffing and equipment resources should result in a significant increase in the output by the central institutions sector of engineering and technology graduates.
I can also announce that I have completed my consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the rate support grant settlement and I shall lay before the House in due course the relevant rate support grant order. This will provide for a total relevant


expenditure figure of £3,399·3 million and aggregate Exchequer grant of £1,924 million. Taking into account adjustments consequent upon the transfer of colleges, this is an increase of £19 million on the figure I announced in August.
The provision for relevent expenditure is, excluding loans charges and interest receipts, 5 per cent. above the figure for 1984–85 and £98 million above the provision in the White Paper, Cmnd. 9143.
In 1985–86 the needs element which accounts for 87 per cent. of rate support grant, will, as in 1984–85, be distributed on the basis of client group assessments. Grant changes between one year and another will again be limited, but good progress will be made towards the full implementation on the client group method.
As a result of the revaluation of property which takes effect from 1 April 1985, the share of the rating burden borne by industry will be reduced. I have therefore decided to reduce from 1 April 1985 the level of industrial derating from its present 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. This will still leave industry as the sector which gains most from revaluation. The revaluation will increase considerably the domestic ratepayer's share of the rate burden. I have therefore increased the domestic element of rate support grant from 1p to 5p in post-revaluation terms. This will reduce by half the effect of revaluation on the domestic ratepayer. I now look to local authorities to bring their expenditure down to the realistic guidelines which they have been given.

The decisions which I have announced today reflect the priority which the Government attach to keeping public expenditure on course, while recognising the need to make adequate resources available for important services. The flexibility in the Scottish block arrangements has again enabled me to ensure that Scotland's needs and circumstances are taken properly into account.

Following is the table:



1984–85
1985–86
1985–86


Programmes (details as appropriate in notes below)
White Paper (Cmnd. 9143) with Budget and other pre-Survey changes
White Paper (Cmnd. 9143) with Budget and other pre-Survey changes
Revised* £ million


Agriculture,


fisheries and food
188
195
176


Industry, energy,


trade and employment
169
171
†275


Tourism
11
12
12


Transport
492
514
530


Housing
650
593
598


Other


environmental services
541
554
556


Law, order and


protective services
489
506
511


Education
1,612
1,657
1,695


Arts and Libraries
59
62
67


Health and social work
2,164
2,280
2,307


Other public services
101
104
104


Nationalised Industries‡
309
251
246






1984–85
1985–86
1985–86


Programmes (details as appropriate in notes below)
White Paper (Cmnd. 9143) with Budget and other pre-Survey changes
White Paper (Cmnd. 9143) with Budget and other pre-Survey changes
Revised* £ million


Local authority


current expenditure not allocated
75
52
81



6,860
6,950
7,158


* Some figures may be subject to detailed technical amendment before publication of the 1985 Public Expenditure White Paper.



† Includes Regional Development Grants.


‡Treated on GB basis in Autumn Statement.

Note:

Owing to rounding individual figures may not sum to totals.

Agriculture: Changes in capital grants announced on 11 December will lead to a reduction of some £5 million in grant payments in Scotland in 1985–86. Support for hill farmers will be maintained through hill livestock compensatory allowances and in some cases improved.

Industry: Changes in regional industrial policy (including transfer of responsibility for regional development grants in Scotland) were announced on 28 November. Provision for selective financial assistance has been increased by £10 million to reflect its increased importance. Cash provision for grant-in-aid to the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board has been increased over the underlying 1984–85 level.

Roads and Transport: Provision will be about £37 million more than was planned for the current year. This will maintain the momentum of the motorway and trunk roads programme enabling further significant progress with important bypasses, dual carriageways and other improvements. The Government will continue to honour its commitment to subsidise certain shipping and civil aviation services. Local authority investment in roads and public transport will also be maintained.

Housing: The reduction in housing provision mainly reflects lower capital expenditure on private sector improvement and repair grants following termination of higher rates of grant at March 1984.

Other Environmental Services: The urban programme will receive over £30 million compared with £26 million in the current year. Capital provision for water and sewerage will remain a priority with provision of £95 million compared to £92 million in 1984–85.

Law, Order and Protective Services: Provision should meet police service costs including some increased manpower; allow for a further 150 prison officers; support continued improvement in upgrading of prison buildings including work on two major projects at Greenock and Shotts; enable fire cover to be provided at minimum standards; carry forward civil defence planning and meet the cost of expected growth in demand for legal aid services.

Education: Provision reflects decisions already announced on student awards and central institutions expenditure. It takes account of the transfer to the central institutions sector of Napier college and Glasgow college of technology in September 1985. Increased local authority capital expenditure should enable faster progress on building improvement and rationalisation of schools.

Arts and Libraries: Provision has been increased to allow improvements in the staffing of national institutions and an expanded programme of repairs and maintenance. A modest increase in grants to the Scottish Museums Council and Scottish Film Council should also be possible.

Health and Social Work: The provision made for this programme allows for a cash increase for the hospitals and community health services programme of about 5·5 per cent. to enable health boards to meet the pay and price rises and also new demands for health care arising from demographic change. There are also sufficient additional resources to enable expenditure on the family practitioner services programme to match rising public demand, after account is taken of the effects of measures introduced or planned to control the cost of drug supplies and to contain the cost to the NHS of prescriptions. Government assistance to voluntary social work bodies, including community care and projects related to drug abuse, will also be increased.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I start with the public expenditure figures. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is clear that today's announcement means a cut in real terms as against the 1984–85 figures, even though the cash figures have been increased by the inclusion, for the first time, of regional development grant? If the Secretary of State had not had the benefit of comparing unlike with like, we would almost certainly have had a cut in real terms of nearly 3 per cent. Is it not true that his complacency is staggering, given the mean and inadequate provisions that existed in 1984–85 and the fact that only a blinkered loyalty to the Treasury makes the right hon. Gentleman look for further cuts on top of last year's cut of almost £200 million in real terms?
The right hon. Gentleman gave a remarkable performance, particularly in dealing with housing. He gave the impression that his statement was full of good news and festive cheer. In fact, housing has been sandbagged again. I estimate that the cut in real terms this year compared with last year is about 14 per cent. Housing support grant will be cut to £48 million. Towards the beginning of the Conervative party's period in power the housing support grant was more than £220 million. The right hon. Gentleman boasts of increases in the HRA capital allowance, but he fails to say that that increase has been more than offset by massive cuts in the non-HRA programme and that there has been an overall reduction. The right hon. Gentleman's gift for citing a nice selection of statistics calculated to give an impression which bears no relationship to reality is becoming tiresome.
Will the NHS allocation fully cover demographic changes and improved techniques? The right hon. Gentleman referred to an increase of 1 per cent. above the inflation rate, but, as I understand it, that is not sufficient to cover the agreed figure, which requires an increase of about 1·2 per cent. to stand still. Would there still be a sufficient increase to cover those improvements and demographic changes if the NHS pay and price deflator were applied to the figures?
The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the £3 million that he has to find for his budget because of the student grant debacle is coming from the education budget and not from some other part of the Scottish Office budget. Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the House what has gone to make room for this additional cut?
The House will note with dismay that the rate support grant has fallen from 62·2 to 56·5 per cent. I believe that it has been cut every year since the Conservative party came to power. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to mention the grant rate. I accept that the relevant expenditure has increased by 4·9 per cent., but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the combined effect is a £6 million reduction in the grant payable? That is a significant reduction in real terms.
I ask the Secretary of State to deal more fully with the effect of revaluation. Is it not a disgrace that the £50 million which must be found to meet partially the impact of revaluation on the domestic ratepayer is to come from the needs element, particularly the needs element of district councils, to which the Secretary of State has contributed only £19 million?
There was a deafening silence about the likely rate increase as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's decision. I suggest that the inevitable victim will be the ratepayer. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, on a standstill budget for local authorities in 1985–86, the ratepayer will have to find another £194 million for the increase in relevant expenditure, that the local authorities will receive £6 million less in grant and that the £50 million will have to come from the needs element and, therfore, at the expense of services? That money will have to be found by the ratepayer. It looks like an increase of about 16 per cent. on a standstill budget.
Even if local authorities lowered their figures, cutting services by £100 million to meet the guidelines, the increase would still be almost 10 per cent. across the board, before taking into acount the impact of revaluation on the domestic ratepayer, which I would put:—I understand that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities agrees—at about 8 per cent. Depending on whether it is a standstill budget, with no question of growth, or whether it is a budget for local authorities which come down to guidelines, the range of rate increases will be between 17 and 25 per cent. I ask the Secretary of State to comment on that aspect of the matter.
What will be the position—this will be of particular interest to Conservative Back Benchers — of those authorities which are below or at the guidelines? If they remain at the guidelines set by the Government, they will have to bear, through their rates, the entire burden of increases in relevant expenditure, the entire cut in the grant allocated to them and the entire strain on services of the switch from the needs to the domestic element. Those local authorities will be looking at 24 or 25 per cent rate increases, with not even the option of cutting to come down to the guidelines, because they are already at those guidelines. The local authorities will be able to mitigate the impact only by spending well below the guidelines set by the Secretary of State. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is a fair analysis? If so, is that the reward for the loyalty that he has demanded from those local authorities?
Is it not typical of the whole fraudulent approach that — [Interruption.] I am coming to the end. This is an important statement. Normally, we would have had two separate statements. We are considering the whole rate support grant and the whole of the public expenditure figures rolled into one, and that explains why so many points must be raised. It is typical of this fraudulent approach that the industrial ratepayer, who might have been expected to benefit from the revaluation, has largely


had the benefit promptly taken away from him with a reduction in industrial de-rating from 50 to 40 per cent. The gain has been offset, and the Secretary of State has taken with one hand what the assessor has given at the other end of the equation. This is a miserable outlook. It will cost jobs and will mean deteriorating services in the public sector. That is exactly what we would expect from the wretched but predictable petty prejudices which now dominate the Scottish Office.

Mr. Younger: I know that it was a long and difficult statement, but I am flabbergasted at how much the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) managed to get wrong. He said that we should have had two separate statements. He has a cheek to say that. No Labour Secretary of State has ever made a statement in the House on this part of the rate support grant. No Labour Secretary of State has ever made a statement in the House on the Scottish block. The hon. Gentleman should have the grace to admit that since taking office I have adopted the practice of making these statements, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be grateful for that.
The hon. Member for Garscadden described the cut in overall expenditure as a cut of 3 per cent. in real terms. He made a completely misleading comparison, because the programme includes the electricity board's external financing limits, which, as he well knows, are declining because the construction work at Torness, which took a large proportion of the finance, is tailing off. If we exclude the EFLs and the change in regional development grant, which is an exceptional item, the cash increase is about 4 per cent. of the total figures that I mentioned. In real terms, this is a decrease of about £30 million on a total budget of more than £6 billion. The year-on-year increase in the Scottish block is close to the forecast rate of inflation.
The hon. Gentleman said that the housing measures involved a cut of 14 per cent. The housing cut, such as it is—today's announcement showed an increase over the White Paper figure to which we are referring — is accounted for almost entirely by the change in improvement grant from 90 to 50 per cent. The hon. Gentleman was trying to cut out completely from his consideration the extra money that I have allocated towards the alleviation of dampness and condensation, which the hon. Gentleman has always made out he is tremendously keen to mitigate.
With regard to the National Health Service, we calculated that the demographic changes would require an increase of just under 1 per cent. for them to be covered fully. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the amount is well over the increase in inflation—without allowing for any savings that health boards can make—and will allow for those changes and other matters.
On the question of student grants, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not say or imply—it is not the case—that any of these measures had resulted from the announcement that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made 10 days ago about extra money for science and technology. As I told the hon. Gentleman the other day, the figures for the Scottish block were not worked out when that happened. We have, therefore, been able to incorporate our calculations within the normal considerations of the Scottish block, which, at

over £6 billion, has not had great difficulty in absorbing £3 million of extra expenditure resulting from the changes in student grants. The announcement that my hon. Friend made about extra money is unchanged. It will still amount in total to £14 million and there will be a first component of it, as I mentioned today.
Understandably, the hon. Gentleman made a small error when he talked about the rate support grant. It is not a £6 million cut, because he has failed to take into account the transfer of two colleges—two central institutions—from local authorities. That is a £10 million difference. If hon. Members wish to make a comparison, that is a £4 million increase rather than a £6 million decrease.
I made it clear that I have provided from Government sources £19 million extra to help local authorities to bridge the gap resulting from revaluation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is making history. I agree with one of his figures. The effect of revaluation changes on the domestic ratepayers, without taking anything else into account, is about 8 per cent. In the figures that I have announced, it is calculated that if local authorities were to spend in line with the provision that I have suggested there would probably be an increase in rates of no more than the rate of inflation above the 8 per cent. resulting from the revaluation. The effect on domestic ratepayers will be only 8 per cent. because I have provided extra money to reduce by approximately half the effect that the revaluation would otherwise have had.
The hon. Gentleman was remarkably churlish about industrial ratepayers. Opposition Members are supposed to be interested in and keen and worried about jobs. Industrial ratepayers will have an average rate reduction of about 7 per cent. I can imagine the fuss that there would be if they had to face a 7 per cent. increase. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be decent enough to welcome what has been done.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about those local authorities which are below the guidelines. When they are on the guidelines they will have a problem with the effect of their expenditure on rates from now on, but ratepayers in those authorities already have the greatest and most coveted advantage, because they have had prudent authorities which have kept within spending limits for many years. On the whole, their rate levels are much lower than those of the mostly Labour-dominated authorities which have been extravagantly overspending for years. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will give a much warmer welcome to the statement than he did.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome the fact that authorities such as Dumfries and Galloway, which keep within guidelines, will receive an increase in their budgets? Will he accept that I welcome also the fact that he is increasing expenditure on the Health Service? Can he confirm that, in real terms, overall local government expenditure is far above the levels of 1979?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I, too, greatly appreciate the splendid efforts that various local authorities, including Dumfries and Galloway, have made to keep expenditure down to the levels of the provision. I am sure that that is much welcomed by their ratepayers. I can confirm that, despite all that has happened in recent years, local authorities are


still spending over 2 per cent. more than they were in 1979. That gives the lie to all the cries abou the terrible slashing of services. That has not happened yet.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the rigt hon. Gentleman's remarkable statement about looking to local authorities to bring their expenditure down to realistic levels, may I ask whether he has taken into account anything inside or outside the confines of the statement that could be done to ease the problem of the Western Isles islands council, which, with the highest domestic rate in Scotland, cannot spend up to its own mean guidelines? What is the reason for the delay in implementing the client-group method, which was expected to be introduced during 1985–86?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the Western Isles. He and I have discussed this subject on several occasions. I have been able to give what I hope will be seen as considerable help to the Western Isles, through the distribution of the rate support grant. I hope that that will be of some help. As regards the client-group method, the settlement makes a large stride towards getting most authorities much nearer to their client-group assessments, and that will be generally welcomed.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Can my right hon. Friend give any informtion on progress in reducing of overmanning by some local authorities? When Opposition Members and some high-spending local authorities huff and puff about his statement, will he bear in mind that some Labour-controlled local authorities seem to have no difficulty in finding unlimited funds to support the miners' strike?
It is difficult to evaluate a local authority's rate record over a run of years when a revaluation has occurred during the period. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could do anything, such as producing a ready reckoner, to enable people more readily to establish the rate record after revaluation, because there should not be any increase in expenditure as a result?

Mr. Younger: On the latter point, I appreciate my hon. Friend's wishes. I shall consider issuing a ready reckoner or some other easy means to make comparisons. That is an interesting suggestion.
As my hon. Friend probably knows, there has unfortunately been a considerable increase in manpower since 1979. I calculate that the non-manual increase has been about 10 per cent. since then. There again, the story of vast redundancies in local authorities in Scotland does not bear analysis. I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings about local authorities' donations to some of the miners on strike. Without going into the legalities of that, I find it astonishing that the authorities which dish out that sort of money can still complain that they do not have enough money for their ordinary and proper services.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Why does the Secretary of State, who is a member of a Government who boast about cutting public expenditure, try to pretend that he is not cutting public expenditure when he comes to the House and makes the statement that we have just heard? His statement on housing is typical. He makes £589 million sound like an increase. This year's figure is £650 million. The real reduction next year is therefore—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden

(Mr. Dewar) said–14 per cent. Why does the Secretary of State not admit that? He is now trying to exclude nationalised industries in his figures for total public expenditure. He did not, of course, exclude them when the figures doubled between 1982–83 and the current year.
There is a 2 per cent. reduction in total expenditure in Scotland on a like-by-like comparison between this year and next. In real terms, this represents substantially more than £100 million. That is what is being cut from public expenditure in Scotland next year. Why does the Secretary of State not admit his responsibility for that and for the poorer services and increased unemployment that will result from his announcement?

Mr. Younger: I feel that I should sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman on his sudden attack of deafness. He accused me of trying to pretend that there was a vast increase in public spending. I remind him that in my statement I said that this
shows that the Government remain determined to keep public expenditure within planned limits.
I cannot be much clearer than that. I have explained that the reductions in the housing figures which he mentioned are due almost entirely to the reduction in the non-HRA portion, which is reflected in the reduction in improvement grants from 90 to 50 per cent.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman—I hope that it will not embarrass him too much— that the resulting level of improvement grants is miles ahead of anything that he ever achieved in any year, or even after adding all his years together. He mentioned a reduction in real teams. Unfortunately, it must be a question of deafness, because I explained in my first answer that that is largely accounted for by the change in the Torness EFL, which is an understandable and correct procedure.

Mr. John Corrie: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to support ferry services to the islands as generously in the future as he has in the past? Is he aware of how important these ferry services are to the people in the island communities?

Mr. Younger: I confirm to my hon. Friend that I have written into the figures further provision for assisting with those services.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the £75 million cash increase to be allocated to the hospital boards assumes a wage increase for nurses of not more than 3 per cent? Since they would need at least 20 per cent. to get back in real terms to what they were earning 10 years ago, does it not mean that if there is any improvement at all in the Health Service it will be at the expense of people who are already grossly exploited within it?
With regard to housing, is it not the case that more than 12 months ago one district council alone, Kirkcaldy, estimated that to bring its non-traditional houses into habitable condition it would need to spend at least £50 million?
Will the Secretary of State read the recent report of the National Economic Development Council, on which the Government are represented, which says that billions of pounds will have to be spent on the infrastructure—roads, the transport system, education, hospitals and so on — and that these services are being ruined by the Government's gross neglect of them?

Mr. Younger: I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will think that he is overstating his point very seriously. The nurses have had from this Government what they have never had from any other Government— a proper review body for their pay system. I think that they are very grateful for that. There are now far more nurses than there were under the last Labour Government, as the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to recall.
Health authorities are expected to find the cost of pay and price increases in 1985–86 from within the general increase of 5·5 per cent. made available for this programme. The Government consider that a pay increase of 3 per cent. would be reasonable, and at that level hospital and community health services would have resources to expand by about 2 per cent. It is entirely up to those concerned with negotiations to decide what level of pay settlements there should be, although it follows that if pay settlements are higher there will be less money for expansion and development.
With regard to housing, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have found an extra £16 million to go specifically towards dealing with dampness and condensation. I should have thought that that would be welcome to the hon. Gentleman, particularly as the rest of the allocations to local authorities include money for maintaining their houses, and it can be used for helping with the dampness problem if they give it a high enough priority.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that £43 million extra is being provided for housing and that this will mean increased provision for the housing associations, through the Housing Corporation? Not only will there be a special allocation for housing affected by dampness and condensation; ill there not also be an allocation for defective housing, such as Orlit housing?

Mr. Younger: I confirm that there is £43 million extra on the housing revenue account.
I am glad that, taking into the account the local authority component, the housing associations will once more be able to look for a total expenditure of about £100 million this year—a figure miles higher than anything remotely achieved by previous Governments. I hope that Opposition Members will welcome that, as they are supposed to be in favour of the housing association movement.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will do nothing but exacerbate the very difficult circumstances that exist between central and local government in Scotland?
With regard to the provision of the relevant expenditure, will the Secretary of State confirm that the increase of 5 per cent. to £98 million coincides with a reduction in the grant from 60·2 to 56·6 per cent., and that that difference will have to be found by the ratepayers?
With the Secretary of State also confirm, with regard to the revaluation, that although he has made a welcome increase of £19 million, that will leave £34 million—the 8 per cent. that he talked about—to be found by the ratepayers?
How long will it take the Secretary of State to implement fully the client-group approach? Will it take two, 10, or 20 years?

Mr. Younger: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I cannot give a precise number of years, but on this occasion there has been a major step in that direction. I accept the hon. Gentleman's wish that we should get to full implementation as soon as possible.
As for exacerbating local authority and central government relations, if that were to happen anywhere, I am sure it would not be in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world, because the Borders regional council has not only done extremely well in keeping expenditure down to a reasonable level, but it has been particularly helped by this settlement, as have several other authorities. I hope the hon. Gentleman will find that that is helpful to him and his constituents.
With regard to the reduction in grant, of course it is the case that the Government have been trying to reduce the percentage of rate support grant. There is ample evidence to show that whenever that has not been done — for three years running it was not done — the local authorities have simply put up their spending in order to spend the difference that they could afford and put it on to their ratepayers.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the extra amount provided for housing. I hope that that will be generally welcomed, although the Opposition Front Bench have not felt able to say anything good about it.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the increase of £38 million in expenditure on education and the £27 million extra expenditure on health and social work, but I am deeply disturbed and disappointed by the £19 million cut in agricultural support. Will he bear in mind that there has been no increase in capital grant since 1981? This morning I received a telex from the Banffshire NFU, which said:
Shocked by cuts in capital grant. Disastrous for the future of the hills and the uplands.
As there is a £5 million reduction in the capital grant that my right hon. Friend is suggesting in his statement, I should like him to have another look at it and find a bit more money for farmers.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the increase in expenditure on education. It is of the greatest importance that we have found a considerable sum to increase the amount of technical education and scientific research.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about agriculture, but, when he has time to look at the figures more closely, I think he will find that the decrease shown there still indicates a strong commitment to agriculture. The main reductions are in the spending on schemes which are pre-funded by the European Community. The difference amounts to £17 million. Capital grant reductions amount to about £5 million. The main increases result from the enhancement of the suckler cow premium and payments of £1 million under the milk outgoers scheme. Both schemes were announced earlier this year. We remain strongly committed to firm support for agriculture, and the increased rates of hill livestock compensatory amounts recently announced have been widely welcomed by the industry.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that his statement will be met with dismay in Scotland, that he has a responsibility to reduce unemployment, and that the cuts


that he has announced today, taken with the cuts in regional aid, will mean that 1985 will be a record year for unemployment in Scotland? Would he care to predict what the unemployment figure will be for 1985? Will he accept that responsibility for that tragedy lies firmly with him?

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is on a bad point. His right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) will remind him that, as Secretary of State, he did not make forecasts about unemployment. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of revaluation, if local authorities have any reasonable reduction in their spending, industry will have a reduction in rates of about 7 per cent. on average. Anyone who is worried about jobs must surely welcome that. The hon. Gentleman might also like to note that within those figures there are increased provisions for regional development grants, which have now been transferred to the Scottish Office. They, too, will help to reduce unemployment.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes that have been made in the rating to affect industrial users will benefit coal mines which are working, because they will be paying rates? Is there not scope here for miners to set up co-operatives in the mines that are scheduled for closure, so that they can invest in their own future and take advantage of those rates?
Will my right hon. Friend look at the way in which the support measures are produced for road networks? He will be aware that Tayside supplies the two main roads going north in Scotland. I believe that there is scope for looking at how the roads are funded, particularly with the heavy traffic that is flowing through.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present manning levels in local government in Scotland are above those for 1977, which was the year before the Labour Government introduced the real cuts in manning levels in Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend's final point. That was the biggest reduction in manpower that the right hon. Member for Govan ever achieved, a fact of which I am sure he is extremely proud.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of miners wishing to make use of the grants and so on that are available. I agree that that would be useful. I should make it clear that the extra provision is for selective assistance. There is a greater emphasis on that now. The regional development grants are, of course, non-cash limited, so they will be provided at whatever level they have to come — I correct what I said previously about that. The figures announced today allow another satisfactory increase in the roads programme money in Scotland, which will enable the programme to carry on as planned, and there is also somewhat of an increase for local authority roads, which again I think will be welcomed by them.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Behind all the weasel words, is there not a real and desperate cut? Is it not the case that every piece of economic advice that the Secretary of State is getting is that tax cuts will not produce jobs, but investment will? Further, is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman's boast about the increase in

regional development grants is phoney? He referred to a transfer payment, but in reality there is a cut, which has already been announced.
Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman's figures on housing will again mean a cut and unemployment in the construction industry? Will he admit the fact enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), which is that the figures for the National Health Service mean an effective pay award of 3 per cent. for nurses, which is below the rate of inflation—yet another deplorable and appalling cut?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric depends entirely on there being cuts all over the shop, because that is all that he really understands. However, he has not appreciated that it is no part of my or the Government's case to try to increase public expenditure —quite the reverse. The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that the Government's objective is to try to keep public expenditure under control, and that is perfectly clearly and openly stated. What we are trying to do, and what the figures demonstrate can be done, is to maintain a good level of services by good housekeeping and savings, while not putting extra strain on public expenditure, which would result in a mad increase in spending, which is all that the hon. Gentleman ever wants. Of course investment is important, and we do all that we can with the money available to keep investment up. The construction industry's component from the public sector in Scotland in the year ahead will broadly remain level in real terms, as it has done over the past few years. That is another example of what good housekeeping can produce, even at a time when we are trying to keep down the overall levels of public expenditure.

Mr. Gerald Malone: I share my right hon. Friend's justified objective to contain public expenditure, but would he care for a moment to bask in the glory of the Opposition's philosophy and bear in mind the fact that expenditure on local authorities is, in real terms, above what it was in 1979?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is quite right and is helping to explain to Opposition Members the realities of the situation, which they are criticising from all the wrong angles. It is true that local authorities are still spending more in real terms than in 1979. It is against that background that the terrible doleful cries of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) have to be seen. More manpower is being employed and more money is being spent in real terms. What the hon. Member for Paisley, South said bears no relation to reality.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State admit that it is politically unacceptable and socially disgraceful that he has allocated only £16 million towards dealing with dampness in housing in Scotland when the Scottish Select Committee report estimated that £500 million was needed to tackle the problem?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a disgrace, when parents throughout Scotland are becoming increasingly worried about drug abuse by young people, particularly in the central belt and elsewhere, that insufficient funds are being given to the Scottish NHS, beyond the 1 per cent. which the Treasury reckons it needs to stand still and keep pace with demographic changes, to provide specific thrust to deal with the problem?

Mr. Younger: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has the housing figure wrong. Perhaps the way in which it has been expressed is wrong. The £16 million is not what I have allocated for dealing with dampness and condensation. It is a specific extra amount over and above the allocation that is given normally to cover that and other associated services. The hon. Gentleman may remember that when I met the Select Committee about the matter we went into it in some detail, and it was made clear that if local authorities regard it as a high priority, as I do, to deal with dampness and condensation, large sums of money are allocated to them—much more than £16 million—from which they can find quite a lot to deal with the dampness problems in their areas. The local authorities' own checklist of the amount of money needed to put those difficulties right is £190 million. That is their calculation. If one takes what is allocated generally for housing maintenance and repair and the £16 million extra, one sees that that represents a major gesture towards dealing with the problem. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise once and for all that one of the heaviest burdens for local authorities in Scotland is the high incidence of unemployment? Does he agree that because of his statement, with the inevitable cuts in education, social services, home helps and fire services, there will be a further increase in unemployment? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the 7 per cent. figure that he mentioned as being beneficial to industrialists is one that he has plucked out of a hat, and will aggravate the situation?

Mr. Younger: I do not recognise the terrible headings under which the hon. Gentleman listed cuts and so on. I do not know about cuts in the fire service. I have not announced any. With regard to unemployment, the hon. Gentleman's area is in the largest top-tier authority in Britain and has the best attractions compared with other areas in any part of Britain. I should have thought that he would be glad about that. There are several features which directly help to tackle unemployment, including the lower rates for industry and the money which is not cash limited for assistance to industry, which I mentioned.

Mr. George Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that just over an hour ago the Prime Minister admitted that she was not an expert in accountancy and that his statement shows that he joins that select group of self-confessed illiterates in accountancy? Who does he think he is kidding when he tries to pretend to the Scottish population that he is not savagely cutting the housing budget? It is pure fiction to pretend that he is finding new money, when all that he is doing is finding it at the expense of other programmes at a time when Scottish housing need is at its greatest and when the Scottish building industry is in crisis.

Mr. Younger: I do not pretend to be an accountant, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman does either. Whether either of us is an accountant, perhaps the hon. Gentleman is good enough at arithmetic to tell me whether an extra £43 million on housing means a cut or an increase.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State admit that his statement confirms that he has reneged on promises given

to the ratepayers of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon on revaluation, which he gave in a desperate bid for re-election? As the Secretary of State is so confident that there are no cuts, and as he is so enthusiastic about law and order, will he indemnify any local authority for legal action taken against it because it cannot fulfil its statutory and legal responsibilities in education, social work or any other service because of what are clearly cuts? I ask that because I calculate that the per capita expenditure in Scotland is less than 1 per cent. of the per capita expenditure by this Government, by our taxpayers, on the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Younger: I confirm that I have reneged on no undertakings to any ratepayers in Ayr or any other part of Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes: In the right hon. Gentleman's election address—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Younger: As for legal responsibilities, I cannot see how local authorities spending over 2 per cent. more in real terms than they were five years ago can have difficulty in keeping up their legal obligations. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been reading too many Hans Andersen fairy tales.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It has taken the right hon. Gentleman half an hour to admit that he has done a "star chamber" job on his Department. On the question of funding for the National Health Service, the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the Government are providing for a 3 per cent. increase in nurses' pay. Is he aware that in real terms that is a cut and that nurses' pay has fallen about 20 per cent. below where the last independent review said it should be, and that nurses are now on the breadline? What have Scotland's nurses done to deserve that?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a pay review body has been set up to consider nurses' pay.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Secretary of State suggested that the increased cash provision for the NHS would result in expanded services. As part of that expansion, will there be increased geriatric provision and better, more comprehensive hospital facilities for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped?

Mr. Younger: The figures that I have announced provide for an increase of 5·5 per cent. over the previous provision, which allows the NHS at least 1 per cent. more than the expected rate of inflation to cover extra demands on services, and so on. I agree that the priorities set out by the hon. Gentleman are very important, as do the health boards. Under the share arrangements, it is up to the health boards to use the money available to them within the figures that I have announced to deal with those very high priorities.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Adding all the Secretary of State's years of office together, why is he so blindly indifferent to housing investment and unemployment in Scotland, as shown by the halving of housing investment in cost terms since he came to office in 1979? Why is he short changing Scotland's domestic ratepayers on revaluation by giving only £19 million to local authorities for domestic relief and leaving them to pick up


the tab for the other £51 million? Finally, what will be the average weekly increase in rates and in rents as a result of the Government's revaluation and housing policies? Will he produce figures on those two matters?

Mr. Younger: I shall try to give the hon. Gentleman as many figures as possible. His comments about housing suggest that he prepared them before hearing my statement. Nothing that he says alters the fact that, on the housing revenue account, which he should regard as important, this year's provision is £227 million and next year's provision will be £270 million. To everyone but the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), that is an increase of £43 million.
On revaluation, my calculation is that after the extra help that I have given—the £19 million and the increase from 1p to 5p domestic rate relief — the effect of revaluation alone on the domestic ratepayer will be an increase of about 8 per cent. For the industrial ratepayer it is minus 7 per cent. I have approximately halved the adverse effect on domestic ratepayers which would otherwise have occurred. A proportion rightly remains to be paid for by the domestic ratepayer, but it would have been double that amount if I had not taken my action.
As for rents, on my calculation the average rent increase in Scotland will be £1 per week. That must be set against the fact that Scottish rent levels are very substantially lower than those south of the border, while average earnings are now higher than those south of the border.

Local Government Bill (Standing Committee)

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the composition of the Standing Committee to consider the Local Government Bill. Earlier this morning the Government suffered a major political setback with the most humiliating vote of this Parliament when little more than half—58 per cent.—of Conservative Members voted for the centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme, cutting the Government's overall majority from 150 to 23.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State said on the radio today that he would be prepared to listen to further argument, but he will not have that opportunity as he has not been included in the membership of the Standing Committee to consider the Bill. I understand that membership of Standing Committees is in the hands of the Committee of Selection. But is it in order for the House to express a view about this, and, if so, how can that be done?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. It is entirely a matter for the Committee of Selection. The hon. Gentleman can certainly express a view at Question Time, or in any other way, but there is no formal way of raising the matter on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to labour the point or to stray out of order, but the practice in the House has been for Secretaries of State to serve on the Standing Committee when they introduce major Bills which have constitutional implications, as the Local Government Bill has Is the Select Committee not accountable to the House in any way? Can we not do something about the fact that the Secretary of State seems to be ignoring precedent by declining to take part in rather than being excluded from the Standing Committee on this very important measure?

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Selection Committee. The hon. Gentleman, however, is not entirely correct. There have been many cases in which this has not happened.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend has said, there is an important constitutional point involved, because this is a reform of local government without a Royal Commission or any public and objective inquiry. May I remind you that in the local government reform of 1962 the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), served on the Standing Committee? Would it not be of benefit to the whole House if we had the experience, wit and wisdom of the present Secretary of State on the Standing Committee to consider the present Bill? I look to you, Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State's hon. Friends look to him, for guidance on these matters. Is there any way in which we can bring the matter to the attention of the House so that we may discuss this important constitutional issue?

Mr. Speaker: It would be more effective for the hon. Gentleman to look to the Chairman of the Selection Committee than to me.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it is not possible for the Secretary of State to find his way on to the Committee, will it be possible for you, in selecting amendments for Report, to take into account the fact that we shall not have had the opportunity to obtain answers from the Secretary of State in Committee? Will you therefore look sympathetically at the matters that we raise so that the Secretary of State can make his views clear on Report?

Mr. Speaker: That is ingenious. Like the hon. Gentleman, however, I have as yet no idea what amendments will be put down on Report.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As it seems to be unprecedented for a senior Minister not to serve on the Committee in these circumstances, can you, Mr. Speaker, advise us as to what will happen if the other Ministers are not available? Who will represent the views of the Cabinet and the Government in those important discussions?

Mr. Speaker: I never give replies to hypothetical questions.

STANDING CHARGES (ABOLITION)

Mr. Christopher Murphy presented a Bill to abolish public utility standing charges: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

ESTIMATES

Resolved,

That this House agrees with the Report [11th December] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill (Clause 1)

Considered in Committee. [Progress 12 December]

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

ABOLITION OF GLC AND METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCILS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 11.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
`except the Greater Manchester County Council.'.

Mr. Hughes: The effect of the amendment would be to delete the metropolitan counties from the provisions of the Bill, with the result that, for the time being, only the Government's proposal to abolish the Greater London council would remain. That proposal succeeded in gaining a tenuous level of support from the Committee early this morning, but it may of course be subject to further consideration later.
This part of our debate will be solely about the metropolitan counties. I hope that it will provide an opportunity for the Committee to talk about six counties which, because their future is dealt with in the same piece of legislation as the future of the GLC, appear to be playing second fiddle to London. Clearly, that impression is misleading. Proper consideration should be given to those areas, too.
We should not underrate the importance of the amendment and of the parts of the Bill that relate to the metropolitan counties—especially clause 1. We should remember that the population of six metropolitan counties amounts to 24 per cent. of the population of England, or 11·2 million people. The West Midlands has a population of just over 2·5 million people. Greater Manchester is very nearly the same size. West Yorkshire has a population of 2 million, Merseyside a population of 1·5 million and South Yorkshire 1·3 million. Tyne and Wear is the smallest of the counties, with a population of 1·1 million. The metropolitan counties cover substantial areas of industrial and metropolitan England, and the future of each of those counties should be considered as comprehensively as possible.
Our main objection to the inclusion of the six counties is that, if they are treated in the manner proposed, it will not be possible to consider their individual and differing circumstances, sizes, areas and needs with the necessary attention. The effect of considering them all together will be to impose on all of them a structure devised by the present Government. Our first proposition is that such treatment is in any event inappropriate, because the six counties are substantially different. Arguments about levels of services in Greater Manchester, and whether or


not they should be retained at district or higher than district level. may not apply equally to Tyne and Wear, for example.
It is interesting that we are now considering only metropolitan government. We are considering only the six MCCs, but four non-metropolitan councils—Hampshire, Kent, Essex and Lancashire—have larger populations than Tyne and Wear.
When considering the future of government outside London, there is a strong argument for looking at the whole matter entirely afresh. That was the proposition that resulted in the setting up of the Royal Commission—the Redcliffe-Maud commission—which took three years to debate the matter and form its conclusions. It took the commission three years to decide what should be the next step in the reorganisation of what was generally agreed to be a muddled system of local government that had grown up over the previous 100 years.
We are considering not just the creations of an Act passed some 12 years ago, but the government of the premier cities of England, apart from London. We are considering the future of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, Bradford, Manchester, Coventry and Wakefield. Many places such as those deserve to have individual and proper consideration, because of their different and varying circumstances.
If it is necessary to add one further point to make clear how substantially the six counties differ from each other, one has to consider not just the population, but the fact that the sizes of the counties and the numbers of districts included in them vary widely. Greater Manchester covers 10 districts — by far the largest number—with Manchester in the centre and a radial structure of districts. There are seven districts in the West Midlands, and Merseyside, West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear each includes five districts. The smallest metropolitan county in terms of the numbers of second tier authorities within it is South Yorkshire, with four districts. If we consider Greater Manchester and the neighbouring county of South Yorkshire in the same way, we shall not accord proper respect to their different sizes and make-up on local government terms.
On every objective argument, it would be proper for there to be separate considerations for each of the areas. At the same time—the point has already been made—it might be appropriate to give separate consideration to the other counties in England. There may well be an argument for reconsidering the provision and level of services in the shire counties at the same time as we consider the counties set up in 1972.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. His amendment would not abolish any of the metropolitan counties, but it would allow the abolition of the GLC. Many alliance Members have expressed the opposite view. They are in favour of the abolition of the MCCs and the retention of the GLC. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) will vote on his strange and curious amendment?

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has raised that point. He has given us an opportunity to clarify our position and the position of the Labour party in relation to these proposals. There

were attempts yesterday to remove the GLC from the provisions of the Bill. An amendment to that effect was proposed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Interestingly, our proposal to remove the GLC from the Bill was not supported by the Labour party.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Labour Members abstained on the fundamental point about which they have been arguing so vociferously for months. It is telling that, at the time of trial last May on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 and last night on the abolition Bill, they were found lacking. I only hope that the Labour party's friends in county hall in London will be satisfied with the abstention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on the amendment which would have allowed the GLC to continue.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall in a moment.
We have never said that the GLC does not need reform. That has been the Labour party's view. However, it did not stand by that last night.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way soon.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I see that Labour Members want to rescue themselves.

Mr. Corbyn: These are devastating attacks.

Mr. Hughes: They are self-inflicted. The Labour party scored another own goal last night by not voting for what it has campaigned for so expensively during the past several years.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way shortly.
When the Conservative Government established the metropolitan councils, their proposals were opposed by the Labour party and the Liberal party. We opposed them because we believed that there should be proper regional government, not a half-way house. That was also the Labour party's argument. We have maintained that view. We did not want and are not keen on the metropolitan counties. The question is whether it is better for the lime being to keep the metropolitan counties, with all their faults, until we can get what we want—a system of regional government—or whether we should abolish the metropolitan counties and have what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe to be a much worse arrangement. My hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) have always made it clear that they do not like the metropolitan counties. We have to judge whether preserving the metropolitan counties is better than what the Government propose. With the exception of my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale and for Mossley Hill, the parliamentary Liberal party believes that it is better to keep the metropolitan counties until the system can be improved.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
We believe that the metropolitan counties should remain until we have a proper examination of local government functions and can establish an improved structure. We have held that view ever since the original proposals were made 14 years ago, unlike the Labour party which has changed its views.

Mr. Straw: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Has the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) concluded his speech, or is he giving way?

Mr. Hughes: I am giving way.

Mr. Straw: In case you failed to notice it, Mr. Walker, that was merely a parenthetical interjection in anticipation of the question that I am about to ask the hon. Gentleman. He has made it clear that the alliance's stance on abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC is as confused and inconsistent as its stance on, for example, trade union legislation. There are as many alliance views as there are alliance Members. Perhaps I might put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. He has done sterling stuff in trying to plait sawdust. We refused to vote for the alliance amendment last year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Last night."' It just seems like last year, as I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees—because it was ill drafted, ill thought out and reflected the confusion of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. Amendment No. 13 will save the metropolitan counties and abolish the GLC. The Liberal party amendment last night proposed the reverse. Our stance is clear. We want to save the GLC and the metropolitan counties. That is why we shall vote against clause stand part.

Mr. Hughes: I note, as no doubt do others, that the Labour party must justify its abstention. Matters are taken in sequence. Today we are debating whether to retain the met counties, all of which are Labour-controlled, yet the Labour party intends to abstain again. That is a most amazingly inconsistent and unprincipled attitude.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Liberal party amendment which we considered last night would have abolished the met counties but not the GLC, and it was defeated. The sequence that the hon. Gentleman has described now means that we are discussing another alliance amendment which proposes the abolition of the GLC but not of the met counties. The sequence does not continue, however, with a third alliance amendment which will save the GLC, as such an amendment has already been defeated. On that basis, will the hon. Gentleman not press the amendment to a Division?

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Member for Bootle, who has been here somewhat longer than I, does not yet understand the procedures of this place, I am disappointed. He knows that we debate issues in sequence. Last night we debated whether the GLC should continue, and the Labour party decided to abstain. Another amendment, which proposed saving the GLC, was defeated by only 23 votes. Ours would have been defeated by a similar margin if the Labour party had voted for it. The idea of keeping the GLC has therefore been lost, so we move on. If amendment No. 13 is successful, the met counties will be taken out of the Bill and only the battle about abolition of the GLC will continue.

Mr. Tony Banks: When the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch box for the third time last night, he claimed that the Labour party's abstention was a vote against the GLC. His argument was almost as intriguing as watching the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) disappearing up his own Division Lobby trying to explain what happened. My colleagues in county hall had decided that the Labour party at county hall did not want to be split from the met counties, as the Liberal party tried to do. The campaign has always been united. That is why we abstained on a typically splitting Liberal party amendment.

Mr. Hughes: There are many factual inaccuracies in what the hon. Gentleman has said. Two campaigns are being run—one by the met counties and another by the GLC. If he does not believe that, he should examine some of the documents that I have with me which set out the case for the met counties. They clearly come from a separate office in London. Apart from that sort of inaccuracy, the hon. Gentleman may choose not to support amendments moved by parties other than his own. However, that is an unprincipled stand, based purely on politics rather than on the issue. If he and his colleagues choose to make that decision, that is their affair and they must accept the political responsibility.

Mr. Harry Cowans: While the hon. Gentleman is lecturing the Committee on how our procedures work, he might reflect on the fact that by separating the two issues there was a distinct possibility of one being carried while the other was defeated. That would have destroyed the case he is now making. In order to avoid that possibility, the Labour party has chosen to link the two issues. Therefore, instead of lecturing us, the hon. Gentleman should perhaps learn.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans), who is considerably more experienced in parliamentary procedure than I, does not seem to realise that there has always been an opportunity to do better on one of the proposals than on the other, simply because the GLC case is stronger than the case for the metropolitan counties. For evidence of that, one only needs to look at the Labour party's manifesto and, subsequently, at the answers given and speeches made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who refused to say that the Labour party would reinstate the metropolitan counties. If that is not clear, I am not surprised that Labour Members remain confused.
The Liberal party belief, which is historically, chronologically and factually true, is that the case for the retention of the GLC is stronger than the case for retaining the metropolitan counties, but that does not mean that the Government's proposals for the replacement of either are acceptable.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman feels that the case for the retention of the GLC is stronger than the case for the retention of the met counties. Does he recall his comment on Second Reading, when he told me that he felt that Liberal councillors in the metropolitan areas should resist the abolition of those county councils with all the power at their disposal, which frankly is not a great deal? In view of the comments that he has just made, will not the morale of those Liberal councillors be weakened?

Mr. Hughes: I have no difficulty about that. Indeed, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Liberal councillors in the met counties, all of whom I visited and spoke to during the summer and subsequently, are much more united and clear about this issue than any group of Labour councillors in any of the metropolitan counties. The Labour district councils would be quite happy to get their hands on the powers of the metropolitan authorities, and they have said so until recently, whereas their friends in the metropolitan counties in large measure want to hold on to their powers. I do not detract from what I said on Second Reading. The view of the 250 or more Liberal councillors in the metropolitan counties is that they should not assist the Government in passing bad legislation and that only when and if the Bill becomes law should they be obliged to follow it. That they will do, but not until then.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Greater Manchester there is a fairly substantial library of Liberal pledges? Only two years ago the Liberals there were petitioning to abolish the GLC, but they are now defending the GLC. I assure the hon. Gentleman that by Friday there will be an addition to that library, because Hansard will show that the hon. Gentleman has sold those people right down the river.

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we shall not be happy until in each region of England there is proper regional government, with the powers that Whitehall should have devolved to those regions and with the powers that are at present in the hands of the quangos, such as the water and health authorities, also devolved to such democratic regional authorities. We have never departed from our view that where power can be exercised more locally it should be done so at every available opportunity. There has never been any alteration to that view. Indeed, last night the Secretary of State was kind enough to say that on this issue the Liberal party has been principled and consistent throughout this century. Although other hon. Members may wish to disagree, we are happy to bring that consistency to the attention of the Committee. We shall continue to argue for proper regional and democratic local government until we achieve it, and that may be sooner than many hon. Members think.

Mr. John Cartwright: As we are discussing election pledges, will my hon. Friend consider the Labour party's 1983 election commitment to introduce unitary authorities? How is it possible to have unitary authorities in the metropolitan areas while retaining metropolitan districts and counties?

Mr. Hughes: I shall reaffirm that point and then proceed because I am sure, Mr. Walker, that you would wish me to conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Apparently, the unanimous view of the rest of the Committee is that I should continue. However, I shall not do so, because I respect the desire of the Chair to allow the debate to proceed.
The more one exposed the changing values and principles of the Labour party, the more interesting this debate would become. Since the interim provisions legislation was introduced in the last Session of Parliament, the Labour party's policy has been ambiguous about what would happen, except to say that it hopes to introduce unitary local government throughout England. If that does not mean merging the county and district

councils, I do not know what it means. If I do not know what it means, no one else will be able to interpret the ambiguity in that manifesto document. The Labour party is still using that ambiguity, because it has not sorted out its policy on local government. It is simply on the defensive, and it will continue to be for a considerable time to come.

Mr. Allan Roberts: 1 have always been a keen supporter of regional government. The hon. Gentleman has said that on his trips around the country he met many Liberals. Did he find that the Liberal party on Merseyside is campaigning for abolition while the Liberal party in Greater Manchester is campaigning against it? Is that what he means by unity?

Mr. Hughes: I began by saying that if the metropolitan counties could be taken out of the Bill, we could argue on o the merits for the form and structure of local government appropriate in each of the areas presently governed by the metropolitan county councils. It was clear that part of that argument was that there would be different solutions in different areas simply because the counties are of a different size and shape and have different characteristics and histories. I accept that in some of those areas there is a necessity for county-wide services.
I shall give one practical example. In a county such as Greater Manchester, as the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, there has been considerable support for attention at higher than district level to many of the services—transport, waste disposal and technical services. Clearly it would be seen to be a disadvantage if they were split up between the joint boards, quangos and other Government concoctions. There should be a simple, clearly intelligible, local government regional structure.
5.30 pm
The hon. Member for Bootle knows that the same arguments may not apply to the Wirral, which is a district council in Merseyside, as to Sefton, which is the authority in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, because it is on the edge of Merseyside. Some authorities have expressed a wish to run their own police, fire, and transport services, as many of them did previously. Many of them ran their own police forces and bus services—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool. West Derby (Mr. Wareing) says that boundaries have changed. He is right. The districts, boroughs and county boroughs ran their own services, and many of them wish to do so again.
I now press on to the other substantive reason why the Government's proposal to replace the county authorities with an amalgamation of different bodies is unacceptable to us and, I hope, to the Committee. Implicit in the proposals is an enormous degree of intervention by central Government, which is unparalleled in areas of local government activity. The proposals present a prospect for change, not only this year but again in a few years' time. There is an opt-out procedure. That will allow, in West Yorkshire, for example, a county-wide joint board to be set up to run the police force, from which a district may later opt out. It would be cheaper and better, if a district wished to opt out, for it to do so at the beginning. When there are joint boards, appointed bodies and residual bodies it will not be clear who is running which service.
People will not be able to vote, either often or in some cases at all, for those who will run the local services. Democracy is about the population understanding who run


their services and being able to vote for them. It is not about having an indirect and unsatisfactory form of accountability, such as that of joint boards which do not work well, or about having a set of appointees over whom the electors have no control.
There is no evidence that the Government's requirement that districts should co-operate with each other will be met. Over the years many of the districts have not co-operated with each other. That has often been the recipe for duplication, waste and bad local services. That is why it would be better to take out the proposal as it stands, which is to abolish the metropolitan counties, as it were, by summary trial by the Government on the basis of a last-minute election pledge. No independent analysis has been commissioned in the proper way, and there is overwhelming evidence from chartered accountants, such as Coopers and Lybrand, other management consultants, bodies and people concerned, that the proposals will not work and will lead to the entire system having to be reorganised in a few years' time.
Our amendment seeks to prevent the Committee from following that road to chaos and to allow us to reconsider the metropolitan counties and their government in a way that will result in a better, not a worse, service for people in those areas.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) started on a good point, but, sadly, proceeded to destroy it. Had he argued that at this stage we should probe the Government's intentions to see whether they are prepared to be sympathetic to the view that we should treat each of the different English regions separately, it would have been useful. It would have put down a marker on a subject which we want to develop in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman developed the point effectively by pointing out the considerable differences in size and geography between the metropolitan counties. However, he then more or less said, "The Liberal party's policy is to impose regional government on all regions in the same way." That defeats his argument. It would have been better if he had suggested that he was probing the Government's intentions to find out whether they would give each area the option of a different form of local government. Some hon. Members will wish to return to that point in Committee. It is illogical to insist that all areas should be treated in the same way.
The hon. Gentleman also made the mistake of assuming that people are greatly interested in the minutiae of the tactics of the Liberal party. It is important that we show united opposition to the abolition of the GLC and the six metropolitan councils by maximising our votes. It would have been logical to ensure, therefore, that we get a maximum number of votes on clause stand part.
I wish to draw attention to the strong opposition in Greater Manchester especially to the abolition of the Greater Manchester authority, but also to that of the other metropolitan counties, and to make it clear to the Government that they must consider the specific local traditions of the six metropolitan counties. I hope that my hon. Friends will develop the argument equally well for the other five authorities. We have an opportunity to deploy their case.
I make no apology for concentrating on Greater Manchester. My constituency lies in its area, and I was brought up and have lived there for a long time. I am worried that, although many Tories were prepared last night to support the Greater London council, fewer are prepared to support the other six counties, especially Greater Manchester council. We must, however, bear in mind that there are fewer Conservative Members who represent the Greater Manchester area.
The Minister should consider the traditional approach of the people of Manchester. Although the great demonstration at Peterloo took place in the centre of Manchester, the surrounding towns, most of which are now included within Greater Manchester, sent substantial numbers of people to it. Since then, Manchester has been the natural focus for most of those towns. That was demonstrated when the old royal exchange functioned as the cotton exchange. People came from Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton and Stockport regularly and consistently to trade.
The old royal exchange is an attractive reminder of the history and unity of the region, although it is now used as the arts centre. Every time I go there to enjoy a play, it reminds me of the time when I was a small child and was allowed to peek into the exchange when it was the centre of the cotton trade.
The area has a fine railway and communications network and there has been much development of municipal enterprise. The geography of the area reinforces that. There is a semi-circle of hills and a set of rivers which flow towards the centre of Manchester. The entire area has achieved considerable unity as a result of the way in which the Government have attacked it by destroying jobs and failing to meet its needs.
There are problems of dereliction throughout the 10 authorities within Greater Manchester. Unemployment varies considerably from one ward to another, but there is a general dearth of jobs and a general lack of Government effort to create jobs throughout the area. There are many problems with infrastructure, and many houses must be replaced. All these problems are common to the area, and all the authorities have a common desire to solve them.
In 1900 the Conservative Government organised a referendum on local government boundary changes in Greater Manchester. Parts of my constituency opted to come within Stockport. It is odd that, at the turn of the century, a Conservative Government believed it sufficiently worthwhile to consult the people of Greater Manchester, yet this Government have rejected any possibility of a referendum to consider their proposals. We know why they are unwilling to consult the people about their proposals. If they did so, the people of Greater Manchester would reject them decisively. It is worth remembering that the Conservative party was decisively defeated in the elections to the Greater Manchester council, and at the general election, when the Conservative party produced a manifesto calling for the abolition of Greater Manchester council, few Conservative Members were returned in that area.
On all those counts, and including opinion poll results, the proposal to abolish Greater Manchester council has been rejected decisively by the people of that area. It is ridiculous for the Government to insist on imposing on those people a form of government which they do not wish.
How will the Secretary of State ensure that Greater Manchester has a voice to express the views of the entire conurbation, which until now have been expressed effectively by the council? How will he deal with strategic planning for the area? My constituents are worried about the way in which the shopping patterns of Greater Manchester are changing. Many people may feel nostalgia for the corner shop, but many others—the elderly, the handicapped and those who must have weekly tick—depend upon it completely. The most disadvantaged in the community are now the only users of the corner shop, yet they must pay the highest prices, whereas those who are fortunate enough to have cars can use large supermarkets. It has been extremely difficult for Greater Manchester council to maintain a policy for shopping because of the continual pressure from supermarket chains to establish out-of-town shopping centres. The latter are fine for those who have cars, but they destroy corner shops and the traditional shopping centres such as those of Manchester, Stockport, Tameside, Oldham and Bolton.
Someone must rationalise the overall shopping pattern in Greater Manchester, otherwise we shall return to rivalry among districts. Traditional shopping areas will be destroyed by the creation of out-of-town supermarkets and the reduction of competition in those areas. With traditional shopping centres people have the choice of a series of shops, whereas in almost all the out-of-town shopping centres large chain stores operate what are almost monopolies.
I should he grateful if the Minister would explain how the legislation will provide a better shopping pattern for Greater Manchester, as I see nothing in the Bill that deals with that.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Although I understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels about Greater Manchester and the way in which it has served him and his constituents in the past, does he agree that his analysis could apply equally to Tyne and Wear council and to the other metropolitan authorities?

Mr. Bennett: I accept that, and I hope that my hon. Friends will develop those arguments. I am referring to Manchester because I understand its circumstances. I am not pleading a special case for Manchester, but simply putting it forward as an illustration of the general case.
Will the Secretary of State consider the overall transport pattern for Greater Manchester? The area will have a new transport body, but transport is not simply a matter of moving people from one point to another. We must ensure that the transport policy is co-ordinated with the shopping policy and with the development of industry. We hope that the rapid transport system will be introduced in Manchester, but we must ensure that the transport routes take people from where they live to where they work and to places where they can shop. The Bill does not tell us how the Government will achieve integration of the transport strategy and all the other policies.
Greater Manchester council has been extremely effective in generating jobs, and its efforts would have been greatly enhanced by some support from the Government. We heard the Secretary of State's announcement about intermediate status. This is an extremely divisive policy, in that it has included parts of Greater Manchester with the highest unemployment, but

has excluded the land on which jobs could be created for those who live in areas of high unemployment. Above all, we do not want increased competition among the 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester, with each bidding to attract firms that will bring jobs to their areas rather than trying to impose an overall strategy to ensure that jobs are created where they are most needed. It would be better if the Government left Greater Manchester council as it is so that it can continue its co-ordinating role in the creation of new jobs.
Most people believe that a large urban area such as Greater Manchester has little countryside, but the council has regenerated the river valleys as lungs for the community. I developed that point on Second Reading, so I shall not say much about it now. I hope that the Minister will give us a categorical assurance that under the new proposals we can maintain and expand the leisure use of the river valleys in Greater Manchester. At present, the council employs about six people to look after footpaths. I do not know how one could divide six people between 10 authorities and retain an effective service. It seems to me that it is virtually impossible to make economies.
I could argue the case that the police and the fire service should remain under local democratic control, but that point has already been covered. Instead, I shall deal with a matter which has not received sufficient attention—consumer protection. I believe that Greater Manchester has been extremely effective in dealing with consumer protection. For example, one officer in Greater Manchester has the expertise to deal with the carcases of animals which die as a result of anthrax. I am not sure whether a system could be established to deal with such diseases throughout Greater Manchester.
An attractive feature of the Greater Manchester conurbation is its open markets. The vast majority of the traders in the open markets set very high standards for the goods that they sell. However, a small minority of traders do not conform to the trading standards. One of the attractions of the Greater Manchester consumer protection service is that it provides an opportunity to catch up with the small number of unscrupulous traders who move from one market to another. If those duties are handed back to the districts, it will be very difficult for them to chase after a market trader who is at Denton on one day of the week, at Hyde the next day and at Oldham the following week. It would be far more efficient if trading standards could be dealt with by one authority which would be able to test a sample for safety and examine whether it conformed to trading standards. If necessary, it could enforce its decision throughout the district.
The Government's argument is that Greater Manchester and the other metropolitan counties do not have sufficient work to do. I could give the Secretary of State a very long list of services—in particular the health services—which an authority like Greater Manchester could co-ordinate and for which it would be accountable to local people.
I have, I hope, made the point that the Government ought to look separately at each district. When they are able to put forward proposals which are relevant to the problems of each district, they can begin to think about evolution and something better. The metropolitan counties ought not to be abolished. We need a structure which takes into account the local needs of each of the six districts. The Government should take the Bill away and not inflict it upon the electorate of the six metropolitan counties.

Mr. Roger King: I have listened to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the metropolitan county councils should not be abolished. His argument is that a further period of investigation is needed. The hon. Member believes that there should possibly be a Royal Commission to carry out an in-depth investigation into the advantages or disadvantages of abolishing the metropolitan county councils. The hon. Member couples that argument with the view that progress towards a regional authority is the way forward.
There may be merit in re-examining the case for direct democratic involvement on a regional scale in water authorities and health services. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's argument that the metropolitan county councils, together with the Greater London council, should not be abolished is valid. We argued at length about the proposals contained in the Redcliffe-Maud report. At that time I resided in the royal county borough of Solihull. My opinion then is, I am sure, the opinion which is held today in Solihull—that having struggled for many years to become an independent, self-governing local authority the prospect of a second-tier authority acting like a great grey blanket over it is not viewed with enthusiasm. On the contrary, they look forward to more, not less authority.
I need hardly add that the view of neighbouring Birmingham is exactly the same—but more so. Birmingham is the second city of this country. Over scores of years it has developed into the powerhouse of the nation and has taken on major local government roles in the conduct of its affairs. For many years the city fathers of the council were able to govern the city with a degree of independence which they relished and cherished. Every citizen of Birmingham looked to Birmingham for the maintenance of local amenities. There was no question of looking anywhere else. The citizens of Birmingham looked to the town hall from which emanated every local by-law and regulation. When one voted for a councillor, one voted for a person, of whichever political party, who had complete power. He did not carry out half a job. That is what we now elect councillors to do. There is a conflict in terms of local government interest. When a road development scheme is announced local people do not know who is responsible for it. Some people believe that they should approach their district council member. Others believe that they should approach their county council member.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is the Secretary of State who is responsible for major road schemes.

Mr. King: Indeed. When local people object to a road scheme, they have to go to their elected members, but they do not know to which elected member they should go. There are at least three elected members, including their Member of Parliament, whom they might approach. I do not believe that that is a very good form of democratic control.

Mr. Allan Roberts: To which elected member will the hon. Member's constituents go when they have points to raise about the services provided by the quangos which are to be created by the Bill? And to which elected member will the hon. Member's constituents go when they want to ask a question about their water authority?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that matter. I acknowledge that there are

difficulties over local water authorities. The answer to the other point is very simple: local people can go to their elected members in the normal way.
I come to the point about the abolition of the metropolitan counties being a last-minute addition to the Conservative party manifesto. Many local authorities, including Birmingham, said that they ought to be abolished a decade or so ago—almost the day after the metropolitan counties came into being. The late Sir Frank Griffin, a notable city leader, said at countless numbers of Conservative party conferences and local authority meetings that the new system of local government was suspect and had been found wanting and that the city of Birmingham must get back the authority which it had lost. To our great regret, we were unable, despite a great deal of pressure, to have such a commitment included in the Conservative party's general election manifesto. However, since then we have been fortunate enough to obtain its inclusion. It was not a last-minute addition to the Conservative party manifesto. Anybody who has taken the time to study the discussions at Conservative party conferences and the innumerable pamphlets issued by the Conservative party would realise that our intention to abolish the metropolitan counties was a major commitment. Local government reform in the early 1970s never got it right. It was a very poor alternative. The present form of local government leads to more delay instead of more control.
Decision-making over planning, roads and other matters always seems to result in conflict between the county council and district authorities. For example, the West Midlands county council is responsible for gritting major trunk roads, but the district authorities are responsible for the side roads. There has been a failure to compromise, which has led to extra costs.
6 pm
Even the Labour party, certainly in the west midlands, did not want the metropolitan counties. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that he would not raise a single digit to save the west midlands authority. I suspect that many of his hon. Friends, certainly from Birmingham, are probably ready to follow his example.
The arrangements in the Bill for district authorities to regain powers may leave something to be desired, but the Bill is only a first step. If district authorities feel that they could take on extra powers within a year or so, they will be free to ask the Government for those powers.

Mr. George Park: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that similar statements were made by the Minister for Local Government about Coventry city council and that the Minister has had to apologise and withdraw his statements because they were erroneous?

Mr. King: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that Coventry wants the West Midlands county council to remain in existence.

Mr. Park: The hon. Gentleman should not make any assumptions; he should study his brief.

Mr. King: Much reference has been made to the proposed joint boards being quangos. In fact, they will be made up of elected members of constituent authorities. There is a precedent for that, because, even before the setting up of the met counties, the passenger transport


authorities were established. They seem to work well and there seems to be no danger in going back to a similar system.
If a member of the public has a complaint about the West Midlands passenger transport authority when it is controlled by a joint board, he will go to his local councillor who will make representations to the constituent authority's representative on the board. There will be no major change in the operation of the system. There will be the same accountability.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If a person wishes to approach his councillor, he can usually find out who he is from the local library. The councillor will be directly accountable to his constituent through the ballot box. However, if the councillor representing the district council on the joint board comes from a ward that is several miles away, there will be little relationship between him and a constituent in another ward. The councillor will have no reason to care whether that voter supports him or opposes him on an issue.

Mr. King: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but if there is the correct dialogue running between a community and its elected members there should be no difficulty in ensuring that all points of view are put across in the running of organisations that will be controlled by joint boards.

Mr. Cowans: How will we operate the system with residuary bodies?

Mr. King: Did the hon. Gentleman say "residuary bodies"?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill before he comes here.

Mr. King: I have read the Bill carefully. I am explaining how the joint boards will operate.
There are clear indications that the passenger transport undertakings will be subject to a further review. A Bill to be introduced soon will reorganise those undertakings, many of which are run on a countrywide basis. They may be returned to more local control and we may have smaller undertakings. That would be a satisfactory arrangement.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman spoke with some feeling about the water authorities and the difficulties involved in making representations to them. Clause 54 provides that each of the residuary bodies
shall consist of not less than five and not more than ten members appointed by the Secretary of State".
That reminds me a little of a water authority. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at clause 54, would he not have some hesitation about approving of residuary bodies?

Mr. King: The abolition of the met counties will involve a substantial period of change and the arrangements for handing back responsibilities to district authorities are not as satisfactory as I should like. I hope that eventually the district authorities will be given a lot more control.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: No. Other hon. Members wish to speak. I have already given way several times.
Responsibility for the police, consumer protection and waste disposal has been the subject of joint community

agreement in the past and there is no reason why that should not happen again. However, local authorities will be able to make representations to the Government if they wish to take over responsibility for the police and perhaps for the fire service.
The new arrangements will present an opportunity of which Birmingham city council would like to take advantage. The seven authorities that will take over the responsibilities of the met county will work with the west midlands county police and generally disapprove of the existing police set-up because it is big and unwieldy, stretching, as it does, from Wolverhampton to Coventry.
In theory, it would be possible for all seven authorities to make representations to be given individual police forces, but such an arrangement would not be practical. The chief constable has already worked out a satisfactory arrangement that might be concluded quickly. Birmingham city council would take responsibility for its local police, Coventry and Solihull would go back into the Warwickshire county police area and the rest of the black country area would form a separate police authority. There would be much more local control over the police force. That is what the Bill is all about. We shall not get that arrangement straightaway, but we look forward to having such a scheme implemented in due course.

Mr. Boyes: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Government have taken delivery of the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is making and it will no doubt come forward in due course. Provision is made in the Bill, subject to the conditions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has repeated on many occasions. It would be open to the local authorities concerned to put forward such a redistribution proposal to the Government, and we would be bound to consider it. When the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) says that it is not in the Bill, he is wrong.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I recall that yesterday my right hon. Friend made that point when he was challenged about failing to discuss the Bill in its preparatory stages. The city of Birmingham and some of the constituent authorities in the west midlands made representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking whether this could be considered at the same time as abolition. Such was my right hon. Friend's willingness to consult and discuss that the concession was put into the Bill for which we are extremely grateful.
The ironic thing about the city of Birmingham is that we are not abolishing a Labour authority so that control can pass to a city authority under Conservative control. Instead, we shall be abolishing a Labour-controlled metropolitan county to give great authority to a Labour-controlled city council. Notwithstanding the perils that that might mean for those of us who live in the area, we prefer to pass authority back to one elected authority, because then we shall know who to hold to account for future legislation, costs and development in the area. In the history of Birmingham, the creation of the West Midlands county council cannot be looked on with a great deal of enthusiasm. About a year ago, the citizens of the area, over 1 million of whom reside in Birmingham, were enthusiastically in favour of abolition of the county council. Since then, a campaign, set up by the county councils in legion with the GLC, has been pouring out


disinformation, at great cost to the local ratepayer. It has been saying that the Government are seeking to run local authorities from Whitehall, and that the city of Birmingham will have existing powers taken from it rather than having powers returned to it. A basic reading of the proposals shows that this is blatantly untrue. Local democracy will be better served by the implementation of the Bill.

Mr. Boyes: I have asked the Secretary of State about 50 times what his view on this matter is, and he has never given me a straightforward answer. Therefore, it is interesting to note that when I just whispered to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the Secretary of State heard what I said, and jumped up to reply. I was trying to say to my hon. Friend that what is not in the Bill is that the functions that will be handed over to quangos should be given back to local authorities. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) seems to be arguing as though local authorities will take over the functions of the quangos, but if the Government have their way these powers will be with quangos until the Labour party gets back into power in the next two or three years and destroys the quangos.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. Let us take the example of passenger transport authorities. It may be that the Bill does not categorically say that control of them will be handed back to the local authorities, but there will soon be a Bill which will give local authorities the right to run their own transport authorities if they want to—the decision will be theirs. I cannot imagine anything more democratic than giving local authorities the right to run local transport if they so wish. They may not want to, but the choice is theirs. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) must not run away with the idea that the Bill is the be-all and end-all. It has to be looked at in conjunction with other pending legislation, which will continue to give more democratic control back to the local authorities if they wish it.
There is no doubt that the people of the city of Birmingham, Solihull and, I suspect, the people of Coventry, who are brave and courageous, as their history has shown, have litle in common with the people of Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Walsall, whatever the geography of or the borders of the counties say. They will welcome the return to their town halls of as much local authority control over their affairs as possible. They look forward over the years to having more authority passed over to them through our policy of decentralisation. To ask, as this amendment does, for yet further investigations and delay before this process can be put into practice is a betrayal of our citizens.

Mr. John Fraser: The remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) about giving the control of transport back to local authorities are extraordinary for a Member who spent much of the last Session of Parliament voting to take control of the Greater London transport system away from the GLC and to give it to a Government-appointed body. That is an extraordinary inconsistency, but this is a debate for those who wish to be inconsistent, as it started with a muddled

amendment moved by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The Opposition intend to abstain on this amendment because we are opposed to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils and we can express that easily by voting against the abolition of all those authorities in the course of the debates on clause 1.
When it was pointed out to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that this is a muddled amendment, he took some of my hon. Friends to task by trying to give them a lecture on procedure, so I shall reciprocate. I have spent three mornings sitting in the Committee on the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Bill. It was a Committee to which the hon. Gentleman had been appointed, as he has an urban development corporation on the edge of his constituency. It is a pity that, during the three Committee sittings, he was not able to get to the Committee room. Three reasons why he could not get there have been suggested. One is that he cannot get a taxi, but I do not know whether there is any truth in that suggestion. The second is that the cards telling hon. Members to go on the Committee have no street names on them. They say, "House of Commons, Room No. 11", and not "Parliament Street" or "Parliament Square", so perhaps he has not been able to find his way. The third is that, as there were two hon. Members with the name of Hughes on the Committee, he was a little confused.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman, as he gave us a lesson in procedure, that this is not the end of the Committee stage. After this there will be a Committee stage upstairs. When the hon. Gentleman gets the card appointing him to be a member of that Committee, will he please go along and help in the preservation of the GLC, for which he was arguing yesterday? Last night, he was arguing against the abolition of the GLC, and he moved amendments to that effect. However, the effect of the amendment that he has moved today is to allow the abolition of the GLC and the preservation of the metropolitan counties. I quote what he said last night from a photocopy of Hansard, as that part of it has not been printed. He said:
The amendment would delete the GLC from the list of councils that the Government propose to abolish. The effect of all the amendments would be to ensure the continuance of directly-elected government for London across London. We seek to do no less than to take the heart out of the Bill."—[Official Report, 12 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 1153.]
Last night, the burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that he intended to save the GLC. Today, the burden of his amendment is that he is in favour of the abolition of the GLC but of the preservation of the metropolitan counties. His arguments remind me of the sweet counters at Woolworths called "pick and choose". One can pick what one likes, chew it and if one does not like it spit it out again. It is not that the hon. Gentleman is deliberately confused. He wants a range of options that will be suitable for the alliance of the Liberal party and the SDP. This will enable its members to take their choice, and will please all people. It will allow for those who argue that instead of abolition there should be a form of evolution. It will allow for dissent by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) who are in favour of the abolition of the metropolitan counties, and it will enable the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to make out a different case. Despite the fact


that before the general election his party was arguing for the abolition of the GLC, to be replaced by a regional authority, last night he was putting the opposite case.
Will the abolition of the metropolitan counties bring about a form of unitary government in the metropolitan areas? That seemed to be the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Northfield. He seemed to think that there would be a return to some form of unitary local government in his part of the country, but of course no such thing will happen. The effect of the Bill will not be to have a single tier of functions, performed by one authority. The effect of abolishing the metropolitan counties will be to have one set of functions carried out by a directly elected district authority and another set of functions that runs across the areas of the metropolitan counties.
There will be two-tier government, but it will not be two-tier democratic government as between the two sets of functions — [Interruption.] The Secretary of State mutters. I know that he has told the House before that the joint boards will be composed of elected members of the district authorities. I know that that is his argument. He apparently argues that there is a sort of secondary democracy, in that the representatives will be chosen by the district councils. But that is not in the Bill.
Those representatives will not be chosen in the sense that they will be elected by the district councils. Clause 22 says that they will be appointed by the district councils. There is a great difference there. I am against secondary democracy, but regardless of that there is a great difference between people being elected from among district councillors and people being appointed by them.
There may be parts of the country in which the task of making the appointment to the joint board, the other tier, will be left in the hands of a leader of a political party. That would not be unknown. In some cases that duty may even be delegated to the chief whip. He might be the chief whip of the Labour or Tory party, or—although it is a bit far-fetched—of the Liberal party. But there might be times when the appointment— I stress "appointment" — was made by the chief whip.
Even if the person is elected, there is such a thing as a consolation election. Anyone who has been a member of a Labour or Tory group will know that the important positions are filled by members of the district council. They choose who will be chairman of this and that, and then a few consolation prizes have to be handed out. In some circumstances, the consolation prizes may be given to those who fail to obtain positions on their own district councils.
There is also the removal technique. In order to get rid of, for example, the chairman of the housing committee, one makes sure that he is appointed to the second-tier authority not because he is particularly good at running refuse disposal or the fire brigade, but because that will remove him from competition for jobs at the district council level. There are many other options, but the point is that clause 22 deals with appointments and not elections. There can be no doubt that when second-tier authorities are appointed in this way they bear comparison with an arranged marriage. One gets someone whom one did not choose for oneself and who is chosen for one. In Hamlet's words, that is not
a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd".

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that certainly among the Asian community many arranged marriages turn out to be highly successful and very happy? Perhaps that will be the case in this instance.

Mr. Fraser: I hope that the hon. Gentleman tells that to the Home Secretary, who prevents parties to arranged marriages from coming into the country. Let the hon. Gentleman make that point elsewhere.
The sort of arranged appointment that does not involve the electorate is to be opposed. We oppose it by being against all abolition in clause 1. That is why we shall not pick and choose as the Liberals do, and why we shall abstain on this amendment, just as we abstained last night on the GLC amendment, which was utterly contradictory.

Mr. Hind: The amendment will raise many eyebrows. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the Liberal party was not keen, and never had been keen, on the metropolitan counties. Thus, we must ask ourselves why, in those circumstances, this amendment has been introduced.
Let us have recourse to the manifesto that was put forward in 1983 by the alliance party. The manifesto spoke ahout local government and said that the party planned to
revitalise local government, restoring its independence and its accountability to the local electorate by … simplifying the structure of local government to make it more effective by abolishing one of the existing tiers of Government. This will be done by stages against the background of our proposals for the development of regional government. It would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the MCCs and the GLC (not ILEA) and would also allow for the restoration of powers to some of the former county boroughs.
That is just what the Bill does. The alliance seems to have done a complete about face. Consequently, we wonder whether it might not have pushed the amendment if it did not think that there were votes to be had in clinging on to some of those dinosaurs of local government.
The Liberals arid the SDP cannot agree between themselves. In The Social Democrat of 28 January 1983 the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said:
The present two-tier system of local government is costly, wasteful and bureaucratic. Social Democrats should he campaigning for a simplification of local government bringing the control of key services closer to the people. That means moving towards a single tier structure which everyone can understand.
Then comes the most important statement:
The first step should be the scrapping of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
I shall be interested to see which Lobby the hon. Member for Woolwich goes into tonight.
During the general election the hon. Member for Woolwich said:
As regional government grows, one of the existing tiers of local government will be abolished; the GLC and the metropolitan counties will disappear but local communities will have statutory parish or neighbourhood councils.
Those words appeared in the Estates Gazette of 21 May. It was the same theme right the way through, and it was not until after the election that the alliance turned towards saying that we should hang on to those authorities. It is arrant hypocrisy to turn round when it is politically expedient to bring forward such an amendment and say that perhaps we should all change our minds and go into the Lobby to try to keep the metropolitan county councils.
Today, the Labour party advocates support of the metropolitan county councils. It at least has the


consistency on this matter to abstain. I unerstand that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is a member of the Labour party's Front Bench team. After the election, and after this Government had clearly stated their intention to abolish the metropolitan county councils, he said:
I do not intend to lift one legislative finger to stop the return of single-tier government to Birmingham. That was the view of all the City councillors and it was clearly the view of all West Midland MPs before the election.
Those words come from the Sutton Coldfield News of 23 September 1983.
When concluding the recent Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Labour party's spokesman, at least three times to say whether a Labour Government would reintroduce the metropolitan counties. The answer must be no, because the hon. Gentleman refused to answer the question. Perhaps I can refer Labour Members to their manifesto of 1983, which stated:
We aim to end if we can the confusing division of services between two tiers of authority. Unitary district authorities in England and Wales could be responsible for all the functions in this area that they could sensibly undertake.
The Labour party's policy was clearly to have one unitary system of local government and not to preserve the two-tier system. Perhaps the Labour party falls into the same category as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—if there were no votes in it, they would not oppose the Bill.
6.30 pm
In 1972, when the present system was set up, it was noticeable that the Labour party fought against the proposals. The Bill provides for a return of functions to authorities which are sufficiently large to deal with the problems of all local government matters, including strategic planning. Those who have lived in large county boroughs know that they can deal with all the major functions of local government, and should be allowed to do so. They are closer to the electorate. There are many more district councillors than county councillors. To much of the public, councils with headquarters 15 or 20 miles away are irrelevant.
I was born and bred a Lancastrian. In 1972 someone told me, "I am sorry, you are not a Lancastrian any more; you belong to the county of Greater Manchester." I am sure that that gladdened the hearts of citizens of Bury, Salford, Bolton and other such areas. Likewise, the Wirral, Birkenhead and Southport became part of Merseyside. Most of the metropolitan counties geographically identify with no one. The general public have no empathy with them. They are distant and irrelevant.
Little of the government of London is carried out by the GLC. Assuming that most of the transport functions—especially buses—are taken away from the metropolitan counties, what will be left for them? They do not have the major functions of education, social services and transport — other than a responsibility for major roads and strategic planning. The district boroughs that carry out planning functions can easily extend them to strategic planning. They are quite capable of handling structure

plans, because that is what they do on a day-to-day basis. They can carry on precisely where the metropolitan counties leave off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) referred to the boards. A district council has eight or 10 committees, so, inevitably, a councillor will serve on only two or three of them. If he receives a complaint about waste disposal, but he serves on the planning committee, he will approach a colleague on the relevant committee. Now, district councils will take up such matters with their colleagues who sit on the boards. Democracy will work in that way. The district councillors will be closer to the public. They will be more numerous, more approachable and will identify with the interests of their constituents far better than the metropolitan county councillor, who might represent 12,000 or 15,000 people spread over an often indefinable area.
I am astounded by the hypocrisy that I have heard in the debate. The Opposition are facing in every direction at the same time, in the hope that they will see someone with a different point of view with whom they can identify. The Government consulted the electorate in June 1983. Our proposals were clearly set out in the manifesto. We have been consistent in our approach — we have not faced in different directions. We are doing what we were elected to do. We are not saying one thing and doing another. Perhaps the Opposition will learn from our consistency. Perhaps that is why we are sitting here and they are sitting on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I very much enjoyed the fully-fledged concept of parliamentary democracy outlined by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), especially the idea that debate is irrelevant. He therefore chose not to make a speech of any importance, and I understand why. If he believes that the only principle that matters is that of the manifesto commitment, the process in which we are engaged becomes a waste of time. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Conservative Members who rebelled last night are lesser Conservatives who should be cast out into the everlasting wilderness?
I want to deal with the serious subject of the county of Greater Manchester. We have the opportunity to develop a case that the Secretary of State must answer. We must know the specific reasons for the proposed abolition of the Greater Manchester county council. London hon. Members have spoken as though there were a great difference between Greater Manchester and Greater London, but they are very similar. There is a whole to the Manchester region — so much so that the Government recognised that, for example, when drawing up their recent travel-to-work areas. They overrode the district boundaries and recognised that people operate in considerably larger economic, social and planning units than those provided by the district councils.
The city of Manchester occupies an unfortunate role in the Manchester conurbation. It is virtually confined to the inner city area, so that it does not have access to the resource base which depends upon the conurbation. Those who have fled from the city base to areas such as Trafford should, according to the Government, not have to accept any responsibility for the city centre, upon which their very existence depends. That has a direct repercussion on


conurbation services, such as the arts and the cultural activities that depend critically upon the centre of the conurbation.
Conservative Members say that we can go back to something which, in fact, never existed. When the county of Greater Manchester was formed, the highway programme would have taken more than £2,000 million to bring into practice and 150 years to bring into being—such was the confusion among the small local authorities. I believe that hon. Members would accept the fact that the necessary functions should be performed by country-wide structures, and that is why the Secretary of State accepts the existence of joint boards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that we are specifically discussing the representation of the joint boards. He took some time to explain the inherent difficulties involved with secondary elections. My hon. Friend touched on, but did not develop, the issue of the balance of parties. Although clause 32 provides for representation on the joint boards of minority parties from each district, it does not give control of the membership to those minority parties. The legislation allows the controlling group — for example, in the borough of Trafford — to decide the Labour members chosen to represent the Labour group and Labour voters. The legislation effectively sabotages the effectiveness of those joint boards. It is the spirit not of democracy but of the denial of democracy and denial of access of the public to its elected representatives—those who claim to make decisions in the name of the public. It is the spirit of patronage at large.
Like most hon. Members representing Greater Manchester constituencies, I have received no correspondence in favour of the Government's proposals. No Conservative Member from a Greater Manchester constituency has taken the trouble to put the case for the GMC's abolition. The nearest we come to a Conservative Member from that area is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)—who, I understand, comes from Eccles. That is much to his credit. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to talk about the merits or demerits of the case, because his brief is to stick rigidly to the issue of ILEA.
It is significant to note the strength of feeling among voluntary bodies and other organisations that have had access to the county councils. Those bodies are exclusively condemnatory of the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State. In recognising the conurbation of Greater Manchester, it is important that we provide a structure that allows for integrated planning and services. That integration allowed the city to produce projects such as the Manchester ship canal, which was designed 100 years ago with joint efforts by the various Manchester areas. No Mancunian—I was born technically in the former borough of Stretford—would consider himself to be other than a Mancunian. No Manchester United supporter, whose ground is outside the city of Manchester in Stretford in the borough of Trafford, would think of Manchester United as other than a Manchester football team. No Mancunian, whether from Bolton, Bury, or the other parts that make up Manchester, would consider the idea of breaking up Manchester to have any sense, especially when it will mean worse, not better services.
It was instructive to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) say that he was

unhappy about some of the joint boards. The structure of the joint boards has been criticised by the borough of Trafford, which the Secretary of State prays in aid of his proposal. The bodies that will be set up if the Bill is unamended have been criticised. People may favour the general principle of abolition, but they do not favour what the Secretary of State will put in place of the Greater Manchester council. That is why we deserve a more realistic debate about Greater Manchester.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Those hon. Members who were present when the debate was opened were treated to a vintage example of what I might call the "Lib labyrinth". The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), when seeking to prove that the Labour party was hopelessly inconsistent, divided and confused about its attitude to the abolition of the upper-tier authorities, was interrupted repeatedly by one Labour Member after another seeking to prove that the Liberal party was every bit as confused, contradictory and divided. For those hon. Members watching and listening, it was a remarkable performance.
There are two perfectly clear facts about the amendments moved last night and this afternoon by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. It is clear that, if last night's amendment had been carried, the GLC would have been taken out of clause 1, and thereafter in Committee the Bill would have been only about the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. The amendment moved this afternoon would have taken the metropolitan county councils out of the Bill, so that for the rest of the Committee stage the Bill would have been only about the GLC.
6.45 pm
The amendments were clear. There was nothing strange or convoluted about them. The astonishing fact is that, considering the campaign that the Labour party has been waging in every one of these seven authorities at the ratepayers' expense, it has chosen to abstain on each of the amendments in turn. I cannot read it from here, but I think that the message on the badge worn by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says "Keep the GLC working for London". Last night, the hon. Gentleman had a chance to go into the Lobby to vote for that slogan. It might have been called the "Keep the GLC working for London" amendment. The hon. Gentleman chose to sit where he was. This afternoon, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who represents a Merseyside constituency, and other hon. Members who represent constituencies in the met counties will have an opportunity to go through the Lobby in support of the amendment to take the proposal to abolish the met county councils from the Bill. They will do precisely what they did last night—they will stick where they are and not vote.

Mr. Robert M. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall just finish my sentence. I should be delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's argument because I shall refer to it in a moment.
The message that is going out from this Committee is that when it comes to the crunch, to the most important clause of the Bill which we are taking on the Floor of the


House and the amendments that go right to the heart of the Bill, the Labour party cannot make up its mind whether it will vote for the amendment.

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. John Fraser: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Derby.

Mr. Wareing: Which of the major political parties in this Chamber has voted solidly the same way on every issue and has determined its policy the same way on every issue? I suggest that it is the party to which I belong.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall be interested to see whether the hon. Gentleman votes solidly in favour of the amendment removing the Merseyside county council from the Bill.
Even more interesting is the fact that, during the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, three entirely different and inconsistent arguments were made about why the Labour party was abstaining. First, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is not in his place, said that the Labour party did not vote for the amendment because it was ill drafted. What absolute poppycock. The entire line was to be taken out. The meaning was crystal clear, and any parliamentary draftsman would have been proud of the amendment.
We then heard a totally different answer from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West when he intervened. He said that the Labour party did not vote because the GLC did not want to be split from the metropolitan county councils. This is purely a matter of Labour party tactics. The local government campaign committee is trying to stick together. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know perfectly well that the arguments about the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are very different. The arguments of many metropolitan district Labour councillors differ totally from the arguments of councillors in the inner London boroughs. I acknowledge that fact.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. The Secretary of State has made what could be seen as a damaging statement about elected Labour representatives on district councils in metropolitan county areas. He should justify that.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member is on a point of argument, not a point of order.

Mr. Jenkin: We have had three arguments. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that the Labour party was not voting against these crucial amendments which go to the heart of the Bill because the two amendments were contradictory. What rubbish. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I came into the House on the same day. We have been here now for 20 years. He knows that it is entirely in order for any hon. Member to table in succession a series of amendments. Each one is then voted on. The argument that the amendments might be

inconsistent has never carried any weight. It is a good argument to say, "That amendment was defeated, so I shall now move this amendment."
It was an entirely legitimate tactic for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to have moved an amendment last night to take the GLC out of the Bill and then, when it was defeated, this afternoon to move an amendment to take out the metropolitan counties. The Labour party has sat tight on both. When it came to the crucial issue in the Bill, the Labour party did not put its votes where its mouth is and where the ratepayers' money has gone.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He made a good, closely argued speech. I shall be brief because I sense that the Committee wishes to reach a decision fairly soon.
We all know that the Liberal party is divided on this issue. The hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) have made it clear that they are in favour of abolishing the metropolitan county councils. The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) have made it clear that they wish to keep those authorities. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that there was nothing inconsistent about that. They want to keep them until they can put something better in their place, so therefore two vote to keep them and two vote to get rid of them. As an example of tortuous logic, that just about takes the biscuit.
We are aware of the view of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He was asked a clear question by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)—whether the hon. Member for Copeland would give a pledge to restore the metropolitan counties. The hon. Member for Copeland said:
Let me say absolutely unequivocally,"—
we waited—
as was made clear at the Labour party conference a few weeks ago, that the Labour party is committed to preserving under democratic control the achievements and strategic functions in the management of local government services. That is quite specific—".—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 40.]
I have read those words up and down and I can make neither head nor tail of them.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: It is clear that the Labour party has consistently refused in the past few months to give any commitment to restore the metropolitan county councils.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made an important and interesting speech. He made a number of points. He and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) talked about unity of the Greater Manchester area which somehow justified this complicated and unconvincing system of two-tier government. With the benefit of experience, we believe that it is unconvincing. They said that Manchester is the focus for the towns around, and I do not doubt that. They mentioned the exchange, the arts and the railways. Are they seriously saying that those proud authorities — Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Bolton and all the rest—are not conscious of being strong, all-purpose urban areas, many of which were previously county boroughs, which are anxious to have their powers back?
If hon. Members go round, as I have, and talk to the people in the town halls in those areas — not just members of the Conservative party—they will find that they cannot wait to get rid of the Greater Manchester council. The hon. Gentleman said that the public passionately wished to keep the Greater Manchester council. I do not know whether he is a keen reader of the Manchester Evening News. If he is, he would have seen on 1 December this year this article:
A public debate on Government plans to scrap the Greater Manchester council with other metropolitan authorities was cancelled today through lack of interest. The all day event at Manchester University was to have featured leading politicians from GMC, Merseyside and the Greater London Council. Only seventeen people enrolled.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that last Friday night in Stockport town hall over 200 people turned up at a meeting organised by the Stockport council to hear hon. Members? About 90 per cent. of those people were appalled by what they heard about the Government's proposals.

Mr. Jenkin: The meeting that was organised to cover the whole subject attracted no attention. Those who are involved with local government services in those areas know, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) — the authentic voice of the west midlands —know, that those metropolitan counties have never caught on. They have never caught the public's imagination. The public do not understand the councils. They become confused by the division of functions, which are contradictory, confusing and give rise to conflict and delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield was asked, in an intervention, about the water authorities. I have news for the Committee. The Bill does not set up one authority that bears any resemblance to a water authority. There are only two new permanent boards. One is the London Planning Commission which is purely advisory and has no executive function. The other board that the Bill envisages is the trustee of the Merseyside museums. There is no other quango such as the water board. [Interruption.] I support the existence of the water boards. They are making themselves more efficient. However, I shall not listen to any view that suggests that the Bill is setting up any such authority.
A lot of nonsense has been talked about quangos and centralisation. This Bill deals with the devolution of power to the boroughs. The districts will have 100 per cent. of the service expenditure from the metropolitan county councils to run themselves or for joint expenditure and it will be under the control of elected borough councillors. That is the truth, and the argument from the Labour Benches that somehow we are creating a remote and unaccountable form of government is so much nonsense.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish the argument for retention. From my hon. Friends the Members for Northfield and for Lancashire, West we have heard the argument for abolition. They spelt out the case very clearly, and there is not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friends had a considerable edge in that argument.
I urge the Committee to reject the amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. We shall watch with fascinated interest. Whether the amendment is

obscure, badly drafted, contradictory or anything else, Labour Members will sit tight and abstain. It makes their position wholly incredible.

7 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not often find myself in substantial agreement with the Secretary of State, but I agree with him on one fundamental point. There is no inconsistency, no ambiguity, no lack of clarity and no complexity in the amendment. It would take out of the Bill the provision to abolish the metropolitan county councils.
The Government's proposals do not merely hand some power down to the districts; they take much power away from democratically elected bodies. That proposal is unacceptable and we shall vote against it.
If the Labour party chooses to make a decision today —as it did in the early hours of this morning on the GLC—to abstain, it will be abstaining on the simplest and most clearly stated proposal to remove the metropolitan counties from the Government's grasp in regard to abolition. The Labour party must take responsibility for that decision.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), whose amendment is part of the group that we are discussing, made a speech which, in its substance, was seeking to do what he accepts we are seeking to do—to make it clear that one cannot generalise, that there should be options, and that those options should be decided within the regions by the people concerned and not imposed.
As evidence of the fact that that has always been our approach, the hon. Gentleman will, I hope, recollect that yesterday we moved and debated amendment No. 35, which will be voted upon later tonight. That amendment would provide for local public inquiries to be held in each of the seven county areas producing impartial reports to be laid before Parliament, which would allow a better form of government to be implemented in each of the areas. It would be not a matter of imposition, but of proper consultation leading to proper and well-informed decisions.
As the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) rightly said, if this is not the place where we should debate issues on the basis of good information and accurate facts, and if we are here simply to rubber-stamp manifesto promises, that is a substantial change in the constitutional role of this place. I think that almost every hon. Member would find that change unacceptable.

Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has changed his mind fundamentally from the statement in his party's manifesto, and that during the course of the debate he has not given us one solid or good reason why he and his party should have done so?

Mr. Hughes: I shall come in a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).
The amendment of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is specifically related to the Greater Manchester council. I argued—and I stand by it—that the arguments in favour of the Greater London council being retained are stronger than those for the retention of the metropolitan counties, not least because the London county council came into existence in 1889, whereas the metropolitan councils came into existence only in 1974.
The arguments for retaining a metropolitan county in Greater Manchester are stronger than those in regard to


some of the other metropolitan counties. To that extent also I may find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. Clearly, that was the view of the Redcliffe-Maud commission, which reported to a Labour Government. It said that there should be three metropolitan counties—Merseyside, West Midlands and Greater Manchester. It said that Tyneside and West Yorkshire were, for differenct reasons, not appropriately metropolitan authorities—Tyneside because it was more suitable to be a unitary authority, and West Yorkshire because it could be satisfactorily divided between its five component authorities. We share that view. The Labour Government added West Yorkshire and South Hampshire to make five proposed metropolitan authorities. The Conservative Government were then elected into office, they produced a White Paper, they proposed having six counties, and they implemented that proposal.
That was the judgment of the Conservative party. It differed from that of the Labour party, which wanted five authorities, and from the Redcliffe-Maud commission, which wanted three. We say that each must be judged on its merits and that they should not be grouped together.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) I think misunderstands the nature of our proposal. We say that in general terms there is far too much government in Whitehall and that it should be devolved to the regions. There was some sympathy in the hon. Gentleman's remarks for that view, where we are talking about properly defined local government—and there is always a difficulty of definition—that should be at the lowest possible level. It does not exclude—a quotation was made from a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright)—parish or community councils, because they deal with very local matters and are not at the same tier of local government. There is no inconsistency in saying that central Government should be reduced and shorn of many of their inappropriate responsibilities, and that there should be regional government and unitary local government at a lower level. That is the proposal behind all the amendments to the Bill that we shall be moving.
We do not find any problems with those parts of the Bill which properly take powers away from a metropolitan county where they can properly go to a district. That is appropriate, and we have always supported that concept.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made two points to which I should like to refer, although one of them is peripheral to the debate. He knows that my two colleagues and I will be regular attenders when the Bill is in Committee upstairs. We shall be supporting the continuation of the GLC, just as we sought to retain it in the early hours of this morning. At the same time, we shall be fighting for better proposals for the metropolitan counties.
There were three sittings of the Committee dealing with the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Bill. We supported the Government on the Second Reading of that Bill, and therefore did not have a great deal of criticism of it. I apologise to any hon. Members who feel aggrieved that because of previous commitments I was not able to be present at the sittings. One of those commitments was a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. The appointment was made long before the date of the Committee was fixed. That was

why I was not able to be present. When there is the possibility of more hon. Members from the alliance parties being on a Committee, the problem will not arise.
A proposal to get rid of the metropolitan counties and replace them by indirectly elected or non-elected authorities would lead to the fragmentation of local government. We shall fight as hard for a decent local government service for people in the metropolitan counties as we shall for those in London. Regional argument will be heard. That is why we shall move to a vote now. The Government's proposals for abolishing the metropolitan counties without proper consideration of their differences and problems should not be approved by this Committee or by the Committee upstairs.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 268.

Division No. 51]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Freud, Clement
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Howells, Geraint
Wainwright, R.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Johnston, Russell
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. John Cartwright and


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Alton, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Tom
Churchill, W. S.


Ashby, David
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cockeram, Eric


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Corrie, John


Benyon, William
Couchman, James


Best, Keith
Cranborne, Viscount


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blackburn, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Body, Richard
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Tony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Evennett, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Farr, Sir John


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fletcher, Alexander


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bruinvels, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bryan, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Buck, Sir Antony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Budgen, Nick
Fox, Marcus


Bulmer, Esmond
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butler, Hon Adam
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Gow, Ian






Grant, Sir Anthony
Norris, Steven


Green way, Harry
Onslow, Cranley


Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Osborn, Sir John


Hayes, J.
Ottaway, Richard


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Henderson, Barry
Parris, Matthew


Hickmet, Richard
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Porter, Barry


Holt, Richard
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hooson, Tom
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Peter
Powley, John


Howard, Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Raffan, Keith


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Irving, Charles
Rhodes James, Robert


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Speller, Tony


Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spencer, Derek


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David John
Squire, Robin


McQuarrie, Albert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Antony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maude, Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Terlezki, Stefan


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mellor, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moynihan, Hon C.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Murphy, Christopher
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waddington, David


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Newton, Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side N)





Wall, Sir Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Woodcock, Michael


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Watson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitfield, John
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Whitney, Raymond
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Cowans: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 1, line 15, leave out '1st April 1986' and add
'such date as the Secretary of State shall by order appoint not being before 1st April 1986, such order to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
It seems that the fighting Liberals could not muster as much support for their amendment as the Conservatives mustered against their own Bill, and proportionately that is a very good thing.
The amendment seeks to bring some sense to the Bill by deleting 1 April 1986 and making the Minister come back to the House to lay an order so that Parliament will be able to debate the matter. There are several fundamental issues underlying the amendment.
In far too much legislation powers are given to Secretaries of State who do not have to return to Parliament, so hon. Members have no opportunity to debate the matter. This Bill must be one of the worst as it gives the Secretary of State 40 or more powers to do things by order without any redress for Parliament.
I shall begin with the non-political aspect. Members of Parliament should not be persuaded to vote for a Bill which hands over the powers of the House of Commons to a Secretary of State, whoever he may be, because to do so would be to betray the people who sent us here. Every issue should be debatable. Jurisdiction should not be handed over to the Secretary of State. Unless the amendment is passed, we shall be creating exactly that situation.
This is a highly controversial Bill, even among Conservative Members, as yesterday's events showed. By a stroke of luck, the Government managed to get a majority of 23, but if they had been at all backward in certain other places they might well have lost by 23 votes. Either way, that proves how controversial the measure is. The Bill will be going into Standing Committee, but it is not only the Standing Committee that matters. When we have finished debating this nonsense, people outside in the real world will have to operate it. Therefore, it is essential that the widest possible consultation be undertaken. When that consultation has taken place, it is equally essential that the Minister should satisfy the House of Commons that that consultation was properly carried out.
When we debated the amendment calling for a Royal Commission the Government offered the farcical argument that everything had already been said and that there was no need for a Royal Commission. That flies in the face of the evidence, not just from the Opposition but from bodies such as the National Farmers Union, which I do not believe is closely associated with the Labour party. The NFU is extremely concerned.

Mr. Bermingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the bodies to be abolished own considerable farming tracts and that tenants are extremely worried about the


possibility of their farms being divided up between a number of authorities and the consequent danger to their livelihood?

Mr. Cowans: That is indeed one of the arguments for the amendment. So far, there has been no consultation. Unlike the Government, the NFU says:
Many of the functions currently performed by the GLC and MCCs are of significance to the well being of agriculture within the metropolitan areas, and indeed in parts of the surrounding shire counties (notably strategic planning, mineral planning, land reclamation …) and to varying degrees the role of these authorities as agricultural landlords.
Unlike the Government, the NFU states that its job is to look after the people concerned and that the only way to protect the interests of its members is through the democratic processes of local government. The Bill removes those processes, so a little more muscle from the NFU might have changed yesterday's vote. The Government may care to consider that.

Mr. Boyes: It is interesting to note that our views have the support of many bodies that do not generally support the Labour party. In Newcastle, Mr. John Hunter, chief executive of the Tyne and Wear chamber of commerce, stated yesterday in The Journal:
We feel particularly that economic development, which the County Council has always treated sympathetically, has not really been looked at in the Bill.
That is further damning evidence against the Government for bringing forward this shoddy Bill.

Mr. Cowans: I shall be coming to that. This is not a private debate. Anyone may join in. My hon. Friend may feel strongly enough about this to wish to go into the matter further later in the debate.
The Guardian also supports the need for consultation and for the Minister to come back to Parliament on this. On 23 November it said:
It is impossible to read yesterday's local government bill"—
if it had gone no further than that, I should certainly have agreed entirely—
which abolishes the GLC and its regional counterparts —without asking one question: What on earth is the point of it all?
The Opposition would agree unanimously with that. It continues:
The Government claims duplication will be avoided and a whole layer of local government will be removed and not replaced. Yet nearly all of the present activities—particularly at the GLC, the most publicised case—are not being removed, but merely dispersed: to central Government, to local authorities and to a Baker's dozen of quangos.
Those are not my remarks, but they are very true.
As has already been said, the National Consumer Council is also very concerned. Many words have flowed from the Secretary of State, but he has not convinced the National Consumer Council. The council states:
This Council is, therefore, deeply concerned to note the fears being expressed by advice and information services in the Greater London and Metropolitan County areas over funding arrangements after the abolition of the second tier authorities in these areas. We are also perplexed"—
they can join the club; we are all perplexed—
because the government has indicated, on numerous occasions, that it is not its intention to damage the voluntary sector through its abolition proposals.

Even the voluntary sector does not believe that. I begin to wonder whether anyone believes the Government when they talk about the Bill. All those examples point to the need for consideration by Parliament.
7.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) raised an important point. This afternoon we received another grocery lesson on unemployment. The Government tell us vehemently—and I believe it — that they do not want to create unemployment. Yet here is a group of agencies that has done very well. Despite that, the Government are going to abolish the metropolitan counties with their job-creating functions.
A document prepared by Tyne and Wear points out that since the MCCs were formed in 1974 they have
helped to save or create at least 46,000 jobs, built hundreds of factory units and attracted millions of pounds of investment.
For their pains, the counties are to be abolished. Let there be no more crocodile tears about unemployment while the Government abolish a layer of government that has created 46,000 jobs.
There is another matter raised by Tyne and Wear which is also important to other areas. It is a matter to which little thought has been given. It has certainly not been discussed with the district councils that the Secretary of State claims are in favour of his proposals. Incidentally, it is remarkable that the Secretary of State cannot put a name to even one of those councils.
Section 137 of the Local Government Act gives power to raise a tuppeny rate and to spend it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): And waste it.

Mr. Cowans: Waste it? I shall talk about waste in a moment. We will consider what the Government regard as waste.
The point is that £37 million a year is to be taken away from job-creating agencies. Consultation, as suggested in the amendment, is vital because no consideration has been given to the question of the district councils' money, while £37 million is to be taken away from the creation of employment.
We hear again and again that the Government are concerned about unemployment, but the Bill suggests to me that they are concerned more with creating rather than solving unemployment.

Mr. Park: On the question of consultation, is my hon. Friend aware that the first demands by the Government for staffing and financial information were issued to the county councils on 7 November, with a return date of 30 November? The Bill and the financial memorandum were published on 22:November. It is clear that the Government intended to go ahead, irrespective of what the county councils said.

Mr. Cowans: My hon. Friend strengthens the case for the amendment. The Government are trying to take a controversial Bill through the House at the speed of light without any consultation or consideration of either the services or the staff involved.
The Minister of State made a comment about waste. In Greater Manchester, 34,551 youngsters are on the dole. On Merseyside, 21,172 youngsters are on the dole. In South Yorkshire the figure is 22,199 and in Tyne and Wear, 40,000.

Mr. Boyes: And more every minute.

Mr. Cowans: Yes, indeed.
In Tyne and Wear, 20,000 jobs have been saved since 1974. That may not be many. However, when one considers how many jobs are lost every day because of the Government's policies, the removal of another job-creating function is nonsense and should be opposed.
We know that these measures are nonsense. We are trying to make the Secretary of State accountable to Parliament. We can do that only by carrying the amendment and preventing the Secretary of State from setting a date for abolition before we have looked at a single dot or comma of any of the clauses in the Bill. We want to oblige the Secretary of State to come back to the House of Commons and to lay before us an order that we can debate, so that we can at least satisfy ourselves that consultation has taken place.
There are any number of arguments that I could raise, but I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. However, I want to mention the fact that a considerable number of co-operatives in the metropolitan county council areas are funded by the county councils. There has been no consultation with those co-operatives. I have a letter from the co-operatives which draws attention to the fact that if the metropolitan counties are abolished they will have no funding at all. Another job-creating agency will be lost.
If there were no other arguments for the amendment, I could still refer to the derisory vote that the Government received last night, because they could not even convince their own colleagues that the Bill is a good thing. The Government may resist the amendment. If they do, it will be because they are frightened to bring their proposals back to the Floor of democracy in case, in the clear light of day, the 23 hon. Members who comprised their majority last night realise what is going on and change their minds.
The Opposition are not frightened of democracy. We want a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. If the amendment is defeated, we shall conclude that the Government are frightened of democracy and increasingly frightened of their own Back Benchers, who know in their heart of hearts that the Bill is nonsense because it will destroy the Government and democracy.

Mr. Cartwright: I wish to support the amendment.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The hon. Gentleman has not been here. He has only just arrived.

Mr. Cartwright: I have been in my place for the greater part of the debate. In view of the comment made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), I wish to put that on the record.
I support the amendment, but for reasons slightly different from those advanced by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). I support it because it removes the deadline of 1 April 1986, which is one of the problems involved in the Bill in its present form. The removal of that deadline would allow some sensible planning in connection with the changes that would be necessary if the Government got their way. More time would enable the Government to deal with some of the gaps that have already been identified in the provision for effective functions after abolition.
The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge drew attention to the anxieties of the NFU. Other organisations are also

worried. On 6 December the Greater London Playing Fields Association set out its anxieties in a letter to several hon. Members. The association's committee consists of representatives of all Greater London boroughs and of sport and recreation in London, so it is a broadly-based body.
In its resolution the committee expressed
very serious concern at the most damaging consequences to London sport and recreation, which will be caused if the Greater London Council, in its present form, is abolished without an effective alternative structure for sports management and finance being instituted.
The committee continued by urging the Secretary of State
to establish a Committee of Enquiry with Terms of Reference which will allow a thorough process of consultation and examination to take place in the hope of safeguarding sport and recreation for the citizens of London.
More time is needed to tackle the problems of transition which will flow from the Bill—if it reaches the statute book. The Government have not seriously taken on board the complexities of setting up the joint boards to which they are so firmly committed. They will have to find offices for each of the joint boards and they will have to find chief officers. Staff will have to be assembled, and management systems will have to be introduced. In these days of reliance on computers, new computer systems will have to be brought in and made compatible with all of the organisations with which the joint boards will have to operate. Moreover, the joint boards, which will be composed of representatives of different local authorities, with different attitudes and political views, will have to produce a joint policy.
Under the Government's timetable, functions will stay with the abolished authorities until 31 March 1986, but the joint boards are to be set up on 1 September 1985. That implies a period of co-working. The joint boards and the soon-to-be-abolished authorities will be like a pantomine horse, and I cannot believe that there will be friendly and pleasant co-operation.
There will also be a problem of co-operation from the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs. Some have made it clear that they do not intend to co-operate. For example, the Association of London Authorities said firmly in a press statement of 22 November:
We will not step in and take over from the GLC.
No doubt the Minister will say that the Association of London Authorities is not entirely impartial.
There might be something in that, so I was interested to see what the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives had to say on the matter, as that is an impartial body which has the type of expertise that will be needed to set up the joint boards and make them work. It said:
This timetable seems over-ambitious even if the Bill receives Royal Assent in July, 1985 and whether or not the GLC and Metropolitan County Councils continue to refuse to have dealings with any matters which may contribute to implementing the Abolition Bill.
The society clearly envisages considerable difficulties. It summed up its views thus:
It is highly unlikely in the light of the complicated functions which the joint boards are to be required to administer that they can be set up in such a short time to operate efficiently .
That is a strong argument for more time and for the Government to move away from the magic date of 1 April 1986.
7.45 pm
Much the same problem was foreseen by P. A. Management Consultants when it examined the


metropolitan counties. It compared the change which the Government are now proposing with what happened between 1972 and 1974. Its report said that
there is now considerably less time than in 1972–74 to prepare for this reorganisation, and the problems inherent in fragmenting existing services are potentially greater than those involved in merging smaller units as happened in 1974 … our survey has shown that most Districts are unprepared to take on their new responsibilities.
That is another sound reason for not pressing ahead with this magic date.

Mr. Park: The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience of local government that the making of a rate is not treated lightly. Would he care to comment on the fact that there will be at least seven bodies with precepting powers and that, unless there is the prior consultation and agreement of which he has spoken, it would be quite easy for a local authority to have carefully arrived at a rate, only to have it knocked sideways by the seven precepts coming in at different times?

Mr. Cartwright: That is an important point. My experience is that it is sometimes difficult to deal with one precept coming from just one authority which might be controlled by colleagues of the same political party. Having several precepts coming from several directions from joint boards which might have quite different political make-ups is a recipe for considerable difficulties for local authority treasurers and chairmen of finance committees.
I was involved to some extent in the reorganisation of London's government 20-odd years ago. I recall our having a great deal more time to make the transition. The Bill was enacted in 1963, we had the first elections for the new authorities in the spring of 1964, the old and new authorities operated side-by-side for almost a year and the new authorities took over in the spring of 1965. That was a much simpler operation, as the London county council was transferring functions straight to the GLC, which covered a much wider area and had different functions, but at least had some basis on which to receive those responsibilities. Similarly, we had several metropolitan London authorities which were able to transfer their responsibilities and functions to the London borough councils. That was much simpler than what is proposed. A whole tier of elected government is to be scrapped and its powers are to be distributed among a complex spider's web of new bodies.
Part of this case has been accepted by the Government, because they might be preparing for the eventuality that they cannot abolish all these authorities or have new bodies in place by 1 April 1986. I notice that in clause 59 they take powers under which the Secretary of State may make an order giving the residuary bodies any of the functions which were previously performed by the GLC or the metropolitan counties. That seems to be a fail-safe device. If abolition is not completely achieved and the joint boards are not entirely in place, the residuary bodies will have to take over some of those responsibilities. The great flaw in that is that the residuary bodies will not be elected, but will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will therefore be subject to his detailed direction. If there is to be any delay, it would be far better to leave the

existing elected authorities in place to carry out their responsibilities until replacement arrangements are established.
This rush is a recipe for high costs, chaos and confusion. It must have an impact on the services received by ordinary people. In its detailed discussions the Committee seems sometimes to forget that we are discussing not just distribution of responsibilities and the allocation of functions but the provision of important services on which many of our constituents depend. The rush to meet the target date poses grave risks to the quality of those services. That is another reason why I support the amendment.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) made two strong and principled points. He said that it was wrong for the Government to fix a date before we looked at the detail of the Bill. That is manifestly correct. He also said that the House, at a later stage, should have the right to look at and approve the powers delegated to the Secretary of State. That was also right.
I wish to concentrate on a point that is peculiar to west Yorkshire and on a general point about the cost of the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. In the amendments that we discussed last night, we asked specifically for an inquiry into the cost. At that stage the Government found a sufficient number of supporters to go through the Lobby with some enthusiasm to defeat that batch of amendments.
I asked the Minister for Local Government to detail the savings, and wanted to know what proportion came from administration and what proportion arose from policy changes. I asked that because at one stage I suspect that he tried to obscure the issue. He pointed out that the metropolitan councils and the GLC were £432 million a year above target and £600 million a year above their grant-related expenditure assessments. Anyone who has taken any interest in local government finance will realise that those are not objective categories. They seem to have emerged from somewhere in the Department of the Environment and have eventually been produced in a form which only a few people can understand. However, they have no bearing on local circumstances and are of no relevance to local democracy.
Those were figures for what the Minister alleged to be the overspend in terms of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. However, he did not give the savings figure, and at this stage I wish to place on record my view that the Minister can no longer use the argument that the overspend will be the savings figure in relation to abolition—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the terms of the amendment, which questions whether a date should be specified in the Bill or introduced following a resolution of the House.

Mr. Fatchett: I make this point, Mr. Armstrong, because I believe that a resolution of the House is absolutely necessary. Were we to approve such a resolution, we would expect the Minister to produce accurate figures on which a judgment could be made rather than to advance the arguments that we heard last night, because those arguments obscured the issue by talking about overspend rather than potential savings.
I hope, Mr. Armstrong, that you will allow me to develop this point. I appreciate that your patience may well be tested. I would not wish to do that, because your reputation is that of a patient man and it would be wrong to push the point to any great extent. Last night the Minister said:
There are substantial savings to be made from efficiencies, changes and the elimination of duplication and from the removal of a tier of unnecessary, costly and remote government".—[Official Report, 12 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 1147.]
My point is that, even after the opportunity provided by last night's debate, the Minister did not spell out the figures. On that and on other occasions the Government have tried to accuse the metropolitan counties and the GLC of overspend and have then equated overspend with savings. Perhaps the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will take this further opportunity — which, Mr. Armstrong, you have provided by your chairmanship—to set out the details of the potential savings resulting from the abolition of the met counties and the GLC.
There is some doubt about what will happen to the functions currently performed by the West Yorkshire enterprise board. That board has been successful in its activities, it has saved jobs in both the short and the longer terms, and as a result of the section 137 2p rate it has spent about £6 million a year in the west Yorkshire economy. What will happen to that £6 million? Do the Government intend to reallocate the 2p rate to the districts? If so, the districts can perform those functions. If not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge said earlier, we have reason to doubt the Government's sincerity about job creation and preservation. What will happen to this section 137 money? Do the Government intend to transfer it to the district councils? The Government, with eminent good sense, have just approved a scheme under which £770,000 will be provided for the small firms fund in west Yorkshire in 1985–86. Will they approve future expenditure, and how will that be made? Is it not indicative of the Government's inability to think ahead that they approve a small firms fund for 1985–86 but do not think about what will happen in 1986–87? It could be that future planning for those small firms will mean the difference between economic life and death.
I hope that the Minister will answer those detailed points and take this opportunity to outline the cost savings which the Government claim will flow from the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I apologise to the Committee for having missed the speech of the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) and part of the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). I also apologise if other pressing engagements mean that I shall not be present for part of the Minister's reply. I shall, however, read his comments carefully and perhaps follow up in the normal way. Given what I have just said, it would be wrong to test the patience of the Committee by making too long a contribution, and I shall therefore be as brief as possible.
There is a great attraction in the idea of not having the rigid date of 1 April 1986 for the abolition of the GLC. If hon. Members will permit me, I shall again refer to GLC matters which are of immediate concern to London Members rather than to wider issues affecting the existing authorities. Of equal attraction is the idea that an order should be laid before the House proposing a date no sooner than that fixed in the Bill. It could, of course, be later.

That would give everyone, irrespective of one's view about what should succeed the GLC as the elected authority, the opportunity, at the same time as an appropriate inquiry into the functions of local government, of carrying through the process of dismantling the GLC.
I agree with the forceful arguments deployed by other hon. Members that more time is needed and that there is the danger of serious discontinuity, disruption and disorganisation if such a request is not conceded by the Government.
8 pm
An interesting study was undertaken by the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham, and a study by Flynn and Leach produced a short summary of the conclusions. Paragraph 4 of that report stated:
Then we tackled the other major problem: would the Government's proposals actually work? Because if they won't there is no case for them. And there are grave risks in the 'wait and see, trust us' approach of the Government—there is too much at stake for that!
The institute was commissioned
to produce an independent research paper which could answer the fundamental question:—
Can Joint Boards, Joint Committees and other joint arrangements provide an efficient and democratic local government service?
Admittedly, this was before the Government's proposals, but the fear of "The shambles of 1986", as the report describes it, still remains.
I shall highlight some areas where there will be acute difficulties and disorganisation if there is too short a time period. There is great pressure for and common sense in having a longer period for these extremely complicated processes. The processes will cause unhappiness. A lot will depend on how long the Committee stage takes—that is the parliamentary factor.
The GLC employs 22,000 people. Incidentally. that is fewer than the Inner London education authority, which is often regarded as the smaller body. What will happen about the transfer of those people and the redundancy provisions? The Bill does not answer that clearly, but causes confusion. I see a tremendous minefield and an enormous area of potential chaos in the potential legal disputes which could arise from the distribution of property, assets, land and title deeds. There are miles and miles of files about those matters and, probably, about the existing semi-residual housing functions of the GLC, at county hall. There will be tremendous problems in dealing with them in a short time. There will be only a few months to get through the awkward, ragged transitional period when the new joint unelected institutions will take over those matters.
In a number of policy areas the Government have not yet concluded what should be done. In a broadcast at lunchtime today my right hon. Friend said that he was open to ideas and suggestions. That is encouraging in one way, but it reveals the degree of confusion in the minds of Ministers. What will happen if their Lordships decide to exercise their legitimate constitutional functions
—at least, Conservative Members regard them as legitimate —and take much more time than my right hon. Friend expects them to take? There are many experts on local government organisation and structure in the other place, and they will need a great deal of time to consider the matter. It would not be right for the Government on a


constitutional measure, which is also a conventional local government, so-called, reform measure, to hasten the other place, let alone hon. Members in Committee.
There are many other areas of potentially deep chaos among the boroughs, the Department of the Environment and the outgoing GLC structure when the GLC's functions are dispersed and, in some cases, devolved to local boroughs, although not most of them. There would be chaos in traffic management transitional provisions and in transitional provisions for detailed planning decisions. Most important in human terms, there would be long delay and chaos in the conveyancing of private properties, especially on the cancellation date of 1 April 1986. That would be a nightmare for people who try to convey private properties in London. That is a simple example, but it would affect millions of people.

Mr. Tony Banks: In support of the hon. Gentleman's case, may I say that he may be interested to know that there are still outstanding legal cases regarding property titles from the 1963 reorganisation.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge about that is greater than that of many hon. Members. He may have had experience on relevant GLC committees. That is a nerve-wracking element for the officials at county hall. They are not party political. Some officials have a political axe to grind, but if they are good they keep it to themselves. Officials are not merely worried but are genuinely anxious and almost verging on panic about that on behalf of the public they are supposed to serve. No sober bureaucrat or official enjoys chaos and upheaval, especially when it cannot be intrinsically justified. If the Government do not respond to the powerful admonitions of the Committee and seek to force through the reorganisation of local government functions in a gross period of eleven months and a net period of only a few months, they will find it extremely difficult.
The financial aspect also relates directly to the need for a longer period to do the monumentally complicated task of dismantling a body which a Conservative Government set up 20 years ago. On 24 November The Times stated that Mr. Livingstone's provocations and behaviour had given rise to abolition, but stated:
The government's replies are equally unconvincing because they glibly assume the cost cutting enthusiasm of all borough and district politicians to be that of the Tory loyalists of Bromley and Trafford. The sums cannot indeed be done until the 1st April 1987 when the ratepayers of the conurbations first receive their bills under the new scheme. Even that will allow no full audit.
Can hon. Members imagine the chaos that would ensue? The article continues:
it will take forensic accounting skill of the highest quality to trace through many Public Expenditure Survey lines the on-costs of the central government's own expanded responsibilities.
Since when have Conservative Administrations been in the business of wilfully causing so much confusion about matters which are already difficult to grasp, let alone in a period of total upheaval and disruption? The article continues:
The system will be more opaque. For accountability we will have to trust not the untrustworthy, but easily identifiable, Mr. Livingstone but anonymous officials.
These anxieties are serious. They transcend the more superficial party political considerations and are the legitimate preoccupation of hon. Members during this political week. My hon. Friend the Minister is a serious

and distinguished member of the Government. I hope that he will respond to the genuine anxieties that are being expressed here and elsewhere. More time is needed. More time would produce a much more rational solution, if only the Government would exercise more patience.

Mr. Tony Banks: Once again it falls to me to follow an excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I only wish that more Conservative Members were present in the Chamber to hear him. Anything that Labour Members say about the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties—

Dr. John Marek: There are no Conservative Members on the Back Benches, and only three on the Treasury Bench. The Chamber is empty on the Conservative side, except for the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).

Mr. Banks: I was giving Conservative Members on the Front Bench the distinction of being described as hon. Members of the Conservative party. Indeed, the Back Benches are empty. That is symptomatic of the way in which the proposal is being taken through the Committee. Conservative Members have become so dispirited by Ministers, and by the lack of argument advanced by the thinness of the Government's case, that they prefer to seek refuge in the Tea Room to sitting through yet another embarrassing and, perhaps for many of them, boring evening discussing the future of the GLC and metropolitan county councils.
It is a great tragedy that such important matters should be discussed with no Conservative Back-Bench Member prepared to defend the Government's proposals. Their absence is an eloquent testimony to the Government's dreadfully weak case. One hopes, even at this late hour, that sanity will prevail and that the Government will back off from what for them, I hope, will be suicide. I do not wish to prevent them from committing suicide, but I want to prevent them from inflicting the chaos that their measures will bring to local government in London and the metropolitan counties.
I say that by way of aside. I wish that the hon. Member for Harrow, East were sitting on the Government Front Bench as a main Minister at the Department of the Environment; but he knows far too much and he is far too decent to be offered the job. The Government will ask only those who are prepared to support a lousy case to sit on their Front Bench.
Amendment No. 29 has been tabled to assist the Government. Why we should want to assist this pathetic, creepish Government, I have not the faintest idea, but we should at least try to prevent them from making fundamental errors. We shall assist them by pointing out the enormous gaps in their knowledge of the functions and purposes of the GLC and metropolitan county councils. I have selected two examples that reveal the Government's ignorance.
The first is that the Government say that the GLC does very little. They say that as the ambulance service, sewage services, housing management and London Transport have been removed from the GLC, there is no need for it to continue. What they do not say is that all those services were removed by central Government. If one chops off the legs of some poor devil and then says, "You cannot walk",


it is hardly surprising. Those services were removed incorrectly , but even their removal does not make a case for abolition.
I apologise in advance to you, Mr. Armstrong, and to my colleagues, but certainly not to Conservative Members, for reading something into the record. I am sick and tired of listening to incoherent, incomprehensible and ill-informed speeches from Conservative Members, when they deign to be here, about the GLC not retaining enough functions to justify its continued existence. The GLC currently provides on a London-wide basis the following services: waste disposal; fire brigade; emergency planning; minerals policy; industry and employment; provision of services for the disabled; grant aid to the voluntary sector, including women's housing, ethnic, arts, transport, community and pension organisations; housing, including new build, mobility for tenants round London, hostels for the single homeless, improvements to rundown housing estates, help for housing associations and the creation of housing improvement areas. The GLC is the largest housing authority in the country, although one would not guess that from listening to Ministers.
The GLC also provides a London-wide arts and recreation policy, including the ownership and management of the south bank complex; judicial services; the strategic planning of London; traffic management; funding of advice services and the running of the welfare benefits campaign to help the poorest people of London; policies for women and ethnic minorities to counter discrimination against them; the protection of historic buildings and monuments; archaeology; the protection of the green belt; pollution control; building control; industrial training; provision of information technology for Londoners; the collection of London-wide statistics and intelligence; conservation and recycling; metropolitan roads; roads maintenance; the provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists; the provision of Thames piers, ferries, tunnels and bridges; and the London Record Office. They are GLC-provided, London wide services. Who says that the GLC retains no useful functions?

Mr. Bermingham: To pick just one example from my hon. Friend's comprehensive list, how could the judicial services be devolved? If they are fragmented, perhaps someone will explain to me and to many other lawyers how that will relieve the already appalling waiting lists of cases in the London area.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) follows that intervention, he will be getting away from the amendment, which deals with the date and whether we should have a resolution before the House of Commons.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates another gap in the Government's knowledge of the functions of the GLC, which this amendments is designed to fill by giving the Government more time to think through their proposals. My hon. Friend answered his own question. Much as I should like to be enticed down that road, I shall take your advice, Mr. Armstrong, and proceed down another.
The second area of Government ignorance relates to the services that they say will be devolved from the GLC to the boroughs. Statistics have varied, according to the

Minister who has been speaking at the Dispatch Box—the quality of Ministers at the Department of the Environment varies widely — so the figure ranges between 75 per cent. and 95 per cent. No doubt before long we shall be told that the London boroughs will get 120 per cent. of the GLC's services. However, the most recently used figure was 95 per cent., which is completely wrong. The Government say that the GLC's net current expenditure for 1984–85 is £530 million. Of that, they say that £396 million—or 74 per cent. — will go to the boroughs. The Under-Secretary of State said that in reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 3 December 1984.
The Government's first error is to underestimate the GLC's net current expenditure, which is $950 million. Ministers have no doubt excluded debt charges of £153 million — [Interruption.] I did not catch what the Minister said, but if he said that they should not be included he should bear in mind the fact that debt charges must be met from rates and block grant and, therefore, must be included in current expenditure. It would appear from my calculations that the Government have also excluded contributions to the housing revenue account of £114 million, and they have undoubtedly excluded the GLC's current revenue support to London Regional Transport of £177 million.
The Government's figure of £396 million undoubtedly includes many items of expenditure that will not go to the boroughs. Expenditure on roads will go to the Department of Transport. They have not yet decided what to do with Thamesmead. The provision for historic buildings will not go to the boroughs. The facilities of the Sports Council will go elsewhere. The expenditure for the Arts Council will not go to the boroughs—and we should not forget the expenditure on the shire counties. Those items represent about £60 million of the GLC's net current expenditure, and the Government have included them in the sum that they say will go to the boroughs. It is just not true. I know that I am taxing the patience of my colleagues with these figures, but I do so because we can use them again during the latter stages of the Committee. Unless the Government refute those figures one by one, we can only claim that they are accurate.
I have asked the Greater London council for an analysis of the 1984–85 net expenditure by the proposed successor authority. I should like to read this into the record. The Secretary of State is to receive £3·3 million of the GLC's net current expenditure. That represents 0·3 per cent. London Regional Transport is to receive £177·6 million, which is 18·7 per cent. The fire services board is to receive £143·3 million, which is 15·1 per cent. The waste disposal board will receive £65·8 million, which represents 6·9 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The Thames water authority will receive £31·8 million, which is 3·3 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The London Planning Commission will receive £1·3 million, which is 0·1 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The Thamesmead trust will receive £16 million, which is 1·7 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The Historic Buildings Commission is to receive £4·6 million, which is 0·5 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The Lea Valley regional park authority will receive £4·5 million, which is 0·5 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The residuary body will receive £174 million, which is 17·9 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The Sports Council— if, indeed, it takes over the GLC's sports grants programme-will receive £8·4 million, which is 0·9 per cent. of GLC expenditure.


if it took over the whole of the GLC's arts expenditure, the Arts Council would be responsible for £11·1 million, which is 1·2 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The city of London, acting as agent for the boroughs, would receive £2·4 million, which is 0·3 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The ILEA, taking over former GLC services, would receive £1·4 million, which is 0·1 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The shire counties and shire districts together would be responsible for £4·7 million, which is 0·5 per cent. of GLC expenditure.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to get his remarks written into the record, but I find great difficulty in relating them to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the amendment.

Mr. Banks: I tried to make the point at the beginning that the Government are clearly misleading the country and Parliament. The Government have great gaps in their knowledge. If they were to accept the amendment, we should be given a sufficient opportunity to consider the Government's case. We should have before us facts which will enable both Houses of Parliament to come to a proper and fit conclusion, I realise that this is tedious, particularly for the Government, because they are being given statistics which are Truthful as opposed to statistics which they have manipulated.
You will be delighted to know, Mr. Armstrong, that if I am allowed another two or three minutes, I shall conclude my contribution. The boroughs will receive £293·8 million, which is 30·9 per cent. of GLC expenditure. The successor authority, undecided, will receive £10·3 million, which is 1·1 per cent. of GLC expenditure. That makes GLC net current expenditure a grand total of £950 million. It means that the boroughs would not receive 75 per cent., or 95 per cent., or whatever other figure the Government claim of the GLC's net current expenditure. The boroughs would receive 30·9 per cent. of the GLC's net current expenditure.
If the Government were to accept the offer to submit all their figures to an independent audit, the GLC would fully co-operate in making sure that the people of this country and Members of Parliament know who really is speaking the truth. The House of Commons and the other place would then be able to make a decision based upon true facts. I have read them into the record. I shall refer to them again during later stages of our proceedings. Unless the Government refute those figures, they will stand as the case put forward by the Labour party. They show that we have nothing to hide and that the abolition of the GLC will be to the detriment of London government. It will cost London ratepayers a great deal of money, about which, as yet, they know nothing. At least I have now put the record straight.

Mr. Stuart Holland: It is probably known to everybody in the Chamber, apart from the Secretary of State, that the target date for abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils is April Fool's Day 1986. Whether the Secretary of State cares to make a fool of himself in public is his business. Whether or not he cares to make a fool of the House is our business. We need amendment No. 29, which obliges the Secretary of State to bring an order back to the House for approval,

since 1 April 1986 is far too early to deal with the range of unresolved contradictions in the Government's proposal.
I appreciate that the analysis of PA Management Consultants has been cited extensively, but we have not yet had the response of the Government to the main points that it makes. On the multiplicity of joint bodies rather than a unitary authority, the Government claim that they will "co-operate closely". PA Management Consultants say that this is an
unsound basis for an effective, lasting structure
and that it fails in particular to take account of the current political and financial circumstances of local government. That has been well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who cited in detail the costs which are likely to be incurred by the abolition of the GLC.
Turning to the conflict between services, the Government claim that
abolition will remove a source of conflict and tension.
By contrast, PA Management Consultants claim:
The existing structure provides for the resolution of the inevitable conflicts"—
it is important to stress this—
between different services and between different areas of the metropolitan county".
That is quite apart from the uncertainty of the proposals to which I shall refer later.
A further reason for the amendment is precisely to resolve the cost issues. The Coopers and Lybrand report stresses the kinds of differences which are likely to occur from a high level of co-operation with the Government's proposals and from limited co-operation with them. We are talking about disparities of between £100 million and £150 million on the transitional costs and, on jobs and job savings, of between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs potentially at risk. Until recently the Secretary of State provided no figures, even at this stage of the Bill, other than the citing of something which was produced recently by certain London boroughs. In Committee upstairs, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will wish to scrutinise those figures.
On the present basis, the Government appear to be thinking of a number, doubling it for Labour administrations, subtracting the number one first thought of if it is a Tory council and exiting with a self-fulfilling prophecy. These are the kinds of mathematics which not only would not convince the House, but would hardly convince any candidate who was trying for CSE mathematics. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has already made that point in detail and substance. The House deserves a reply to these questions.
There is the further matter of the unresolved problems which will be caused for voluntary organisations. The Prime Minister has said many times in the House that she lauds and supports voluntary initiative, yet in areas which are directly relevant to a constituency such as mine and also of general relevance to other constituencies the Government have brought forward no adequate proposals —the single homeless, a problem which the House will consider tomorrow in more detail, problems such as drug abuse, alcohol misuse, ethnic minorities and their special problems, disability, advice and counselling services, the elderly, young people, women, community work, environment, special needs. We are talking of tens of millions of pounds. Because of the manner in which the Government have sought to introduce a major piece of


legislation, it does not appear that the House can be assured that if the Bill is guillotined—and there is every indication that the Government will seek to guillotine it — these questions will be answered. Therefore, the amendment is essential to ensure that the House has a proper chance to express its views and to scrutinise the expenditure implications of the Bill and the wider implications for local and central democracy.
The Government choose to say that the GLC's housing responsibilities have been transferred to the local boroughs and that the GLC will shortly have no housing responsibilities whatsoever. I regard that as tragic. So do many of my constituents. It means the end of a strategic housing role for London. The example provided by the ending of the strategic housing role will be repeated in the other areas of expenditure and in other GLC functions to which my hon. Friends have referred. The abolition of the GLC's strategic housing role has slammed the door on many people in the inner city, who realise that inter-borough nominations are a farce. When they come to our advice surgeries, we cannot guarantee that they will have any chance of moving to other areas of London.
8.30 pm
As for the proposed transport quango, Lord Denning, a judge and not an economist, is able to comment on what is a profitable operation for London Transport. It is not clear that a judge, any more than any of the quangos which the Government seek to introduce by the Bill, is qualified to assess the externalities or cost benefits of a low-fares policy. If local people cannot vote for a cheap fares policy, that is a derogation of the democratic principle. It is crucial that, in seeking to render public spending accountable, the House should be able to press for the cost savings that occur when lower fares result in more use of public transport and more revenue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) referred to the employment implications of abolishing the role of enterprise boards, such as the West Midlands and Greater London enterprise boards. Uncertainty introduced by the Bill over the future of those boards will be critical for companies' economic prosperity. We have known for decades of the impending euthanasia of the entrepreneur. Now we are to see the execution of the employment prospects in many small firms because of the unqualified nature of the Bill. Unless the amendment is accepted, so that the matter can be seriously reviewed, there will be no chance of the future of those firms being ascertained.
The Bill is not simply seeking to amend recent legislation. The fact that it is a fundamental Bill is not illustrated only by the fact that the GLC and its forebears have been in existence for nearly a century. The underlying reality is that every Administration —Conservative, Liberal and Labour—for more than 100 years have sought to govern, in essence, by consensus and by gaining support. They have sought to gain that support by debate, discussion and argument and by motions and orders in the House.
It is striking that, in seeking to end argument and opposition from the metropolitan authorities and the GLC, the Government are spinning back the wheel, not merely past Labour Administrations and the Labour GLC, but beyond Joseph Chamberlain and the commitment to municipal government, municipal public works,

municipal and civic pride and the right to local democracy, which was one of the bases of the rise and extension of popular support for the Conservative party.
Those facts will gradually be realised by the country, and they will certainly be realised if the amendment is not accepted. Without the amendment, there will be no way of avoiding the arbitrary ending of the public right (to choice and the public right both to agree and disagree with central Government. There will be an end to the mechanism of consent on which democracy itself has been based for so long.

Mr. Bermingham: I shall be brief, because I wish to save most of my comments for the next group of amendments.
Let me ask the Government one simple question: When will they ever learn? The London county council was abolished in 1964 and we are still trying to sort out the legal problems that were caused because the then Conservative Government did not give the matter proper thought. When we transferred to the present system of local government in 1973, a number of problems arose over farmland. I shall give the Secretary of State a simple example. Farms often cross the boundaries of district councils which may be in the political control of different parties with different agricultural policies. What happens to the tenant farmer when he has two landlords with different policies? Disputes can end up at the Lands Tribunal and elsewhere.
If the Government are not prepared to learn from the mistakes made in the 1960s and 1970s and are not willing to give the proposals in the Bill time to work or to come back to the House and explain how matters have been sorted out, they are even more foolish and stupid than I thought.
The amendment gives the Secretary of State the chance to do it properly. We do not like what he is doing, but if he insists on doing it he should at least try to get it right. As I shall point out on the next set of amendments, the Government are setting a minefield of legal problems for themselves, for local government and for electors. That need not happen. All that is required is some constructive thought by the Government instead of an arrogant doctrinal insistence on pushing through the proposals as quickly as possible because they believe that they have a divine right to do that.
The amendment is sensible and attempts to prevent some of the potential damage that the Government seem set on causing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): One of the main criticisms of the Bill on Second Reading was that it gave too much power to Ministers to do things by order. It was implied that more detail should be written into the Bill to remove that discretion. Therefore, I am surprised to see that one of the first amendments proposed by the Opposition seeks to do exactly what they have criticised. us for doing. It will take something specific out of the Bill and give the Secretary of State power to lay an order to vary the date. I see some inconsistency in the Opposition's approach.
The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) said that there was a need for consultation. I agree with him, although there is nothing in the amendment about consultation. We should like there to be consultation, and


I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence with his colleagues on the councils concerned to ensure that they start consulting and end their ridiculous boycott against the Government and the successor bodies. We could then get the details that we need and ensure that the transition is a smooth one. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for consultation and co-operation.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) implied that there would not be enough time for the joint authorities to be established before they took over responsibilities in 1986. The new joint authorities will formally be in place from September 1985 if, as we hope, we get the consent of Parliament. They will have adequate time to prepare their budgets for 1986. There is nothing to prevent the borough and district members who make up those authorities from meeting earlier to give preliminary thought to their needs.
The executive parts of the new authorities will not be radically altered at the moment of transfer. The services will be provided over the same geographical area as at present and there should be no difficulty in ensuring the continuity of operation of those services.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and other hon. Members claimed that there would be chaos. I should like to quote the chief executive of one of the district councils involved in abolition, Mr. Gordon Moore, chief executive of Bradford metropolitan district council. An article in Municipal Journal on 7 December stated:
'I have no fear there is going to be total chaos', said Mr. Moore. The one thing about the Bradford style of management was that a freedom would be given to its officers, when the chips were down, to get on and do the best they could.
`The prime concern of mine is for the community I serve; they will not tolerate a mess-up on 1 April 1986, if that is the great day, and nor should they.
`They are not interested in all this non-talking, non co-operation at all … I know who is going to be blamed if things go wrong; the politicians will have a very short memory about instructing their officers not to co-operate—it will be muggins and his colleagues who get their backsides kicked for not getting it organised '.
It is the Gordon Moores who will have to operate the policy. They are the chief executives of the successor bodies, and I am confident that once the Bill is on the statute book they will make the policies work.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The hon. Gentleman can hardly claim to be making an argument from one unrepresentative sample. However, if that is the view of the kind of person who may well be on the unelected authority, how are they to be made accountable? Politicians are made accountable by the vote and can have their backsides kicked, but that will not be the case with the quango substitute.

Sir George Young: I was quoting not from a councillor but from one of the chief executives of a successor body. This person makes the point that it is the senseless attitude of a number of Labour councillors in not talking that has made them the culprits, and not the Government, who are giving adequate time to get the policy through.
The hon. Member for Woolwich then made a comparison with 1963–65, and I beg to disagree with what he said. He states that this reorganisation will be more complex than that of the early 1960s, but he is wrong. In the early 1960s, we were establishing the GLC from the LCC and some of the home counties and at the same time

establishing the London boroughs. We were setting up two new tiers. This reorganisation is different. We are eliminating a tier and passing the bulk of responsibilities down to existing successor bodies. This will be a more simple reorganisation than the ones to which the hon. Gentleman referred. For that reason, we do not need the same amount of time as may have been necessary in the early 1960s. I think that the hon. Member will discover when we reach clause 59 that the residuary bodies cannot be used in the way that he anticipates, as a sort of legislative long stop if by any chance it is not possible to implement in 1986. We shall deal with that point later.
In an intervention, it was implied that there would be seven precepts in the metropolitan counties. That is not the case. There will be three new precepts—police, fire and public transport. I do not see any difficulty in the districts handling these precepts as they handle the existing precepts in their rates.
The hon. Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke at some length about costs, but I do not propose to go into great detail about costs, because you said, Mr. Armstrong, that this was not the appropriate amendment on which to talk about costs. However, I noted that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West included, as part of the responsibility of the GLC, expenditure on London transport when the GLC no longer has responsibility for London transport. If this is the sort of statistic that he proposes to use, he will come unstuck. I am grateful to him for putting on the record his perception of the costs. When we reach part VIII, which deals with the financial considerations, that will be the time for a sensible debate about the financial consequences and where responsibility for the various policies will lie.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am as acutely aware as the hon. Gentleman—perhaps even more so—that the GLC no longer has the responsibility for London transport. That responsibility was taken away from the GLC to make the Government's weak case a little better. We know the political reasons, but the Minister cannot avoid the fact that the GLC has to give about £177 million this year in support of London transport. What will happen to the £177 million? Who will be responsible for it?

Sir George Young: The debate is on what percentage of the GLC's service will devolve to the boroughs in 1986. By then the GLC will have no responsibility for London transport. It will not be paying any money towards it at all. It is a red herring for the hon. Member to produce in the context of this debate a figure that includes the costs of London transport.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central raised a number of questions. I shall deal with the position of voluntary organisations when we reach clause 46. He asked about applications for expenditure by the existing metropolitan counties that will take place in 1985–86. If the applications are sent to the Department, we shall process them in the normal way.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West also weakened his case by referring to housing, and said that the GLC is the largest housing authority in the country. He knows that in July of next year, before abolition, most of the housing stock will pass to Tower Hamlets and that simple statistic that he is so fond of using will no longer be relevant.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) implied that the Government had relied on estimates by four London boroughs for their estimates of saving. I hope that he has seen the parliamentary question, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), which my right hon. Friend answered some two weeks ago and which gave quantifications of the Government's estimate of savings. His speech implied that he had not seen that answer.
The transfer of functions can best take place on 1 April in any year to simplify the adjustment to the rate support grant and the budgeting of the successor authorities. We have set out, firmly and clearly, that the transition should be in 1986. We made this clear in the White Paper in 1983, two and a half years before abolition is due to take place. The whole of our preparations, including the timing and introduction of this Bill, are directed towards that date, and there is no argument for delaying the change. There will be adequate time to make all the necessary arrangements.
The amendment would inject uncertainties that would be damaging to abolition. Perhaps that is why Labour Members wish the amendment to be in the Bill. It is best that the clause should set a fixed date and thus eliminate the uncertainty that would be introduced by the amendment. That is the way in which these matters have been handled in the past. Clear dates were given in both 1963 and 1972. To say that it is unprecedented is rubbish.
We have recognised, in the interests of the staff, that they need a clear view of their place in the future structure. We have taken what steps we can by setting up a staff commission and issuing a paper on all aspects of the transfer of staff. To make the date of the transfer variable would lead to damaging uncertainty. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I shall be watching to see how the alliance votes on this amendment, having witnessed on the last amendment that three of its members who represent cities in the metropolitan areas failed to support the alliance amendment to exclude the metropolitan areas from abolition. We are interested to see how it will muster its troops to make effective the transition from metropolitan and GLC government to this new system.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) apologised for having to leave before the end of the debate. He referred to the Opposition's attitude to the House of Lords and intimated that the Bill might be mutilated by the other place in the way that the interim provisions Bill was mutilated. I have heard rumours that, on the advice of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if that happens the Prime Minister will create 1,000 new peers and abolish the House of Commons. We wait to see whether that rumour will be fulfilled.
The proposal in this amendment is to stop the abolition of the county councils and the GLC being tied to a specific date. It would be sensible, in the light of everything that has happened and is happening, and in the light of criticism from Conservative Members and everybody outside who has looked objectively at these proposals, for the Government to accept an amendment that releases the abolition proposals from being tied to a specific date, and allows all the interim arrangements and provisions to be made before abolition takes place.
As many of my hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Harrow, East, have said, the amendment will assist the Government in their aims. 'We wish to protect the citizens of the metropolitan areas and the GLC from the chaos that will arise as a result of this legislation being rushed through while tied to the proposed date. Despite what the Minister said, we believe that our amendment will check the powers delegated to the Secretary of State. Even though we ask that the Secretary of State be allowed to come back some time after April 1986 to present an order to implement the proposals, we are not giving the power to the Secretary of State but vesting it back in both Houses of Parliament. The amendment would kill the enabling nature of the legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) said, it is amazing how often the Bill delegates power to the Secretary of State. We want to ensure that the House of Commons and the other place have a say in what happens, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
The amendment also ensures that all the difficulties and doubts about the administration and handover — which we believe will result in chaos—can be dealt with. The Minister talked about co-operation and consensus. But there has not been any co-operation, and there will not be any as far as this Bill's proposals are concerned. That is the making not of the Labour-controlled authorities involved but of the Government, because there was no inquiry, investigation or adequate public debate before the proposals were announced. That prevented consensus in the first place. We are trying to rescue the Government from a situation of their own making by allowing a period of time to elapse after the passing of the Bill so that that consensus can be created through consultation and, perhaps, amendments to the proposals that might make them acceptable.
I must repeat something that I said yesterday. Ministers, and the few supporters that they have mustered on their Back Benches for this provision, keep talking as though they are abolishing two-tier local government and handing power back to the London boroughs and metropolitan districts. But they are doing nothing of the kind. They are setting up quangos and joint boards and producing arrangements, with statutory backing, that require action in co-operation across local authority boundaries. We shall have Conservative and Labour-controlled local authorities, and—heaven forbid—one where the Liberals hold the balance of power, being forced by statute to co-operate. If that is not a recipe for disaster, I do not know what is. The amendment would allow time for that to be thought out.
The Minister weeps crocodile tears about the problems of the staff working for the metropolitan counties and the GLC, but they are in favour of the amendment and have been advising us and the Tory rebels in support of this amendment. They want this leeway so that their problems can be taken care of. They are not asking for a fixed date. They want time for things to be worked out properly on their behalf, as well as on behalf of the people in their areas whom they are employed to serve.
The amendment will enable the Government to kill the accusation that savings will not come from changes in policy and cuts in services by proving—in the interim, and before the order is laid before Parliament for final


abolition—that they have made savings in administration. If their case is justifiable, they will accept the amendment and demonstrate that point before they abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
The amendment will allow Parliament to remain sacrosanct in the light of inadequate inquiry. It will also help to settle the anxieties of the voluntary organisations prior to abolition. Whatever the Minister may say about clause 46 and the discussions that will take place, and whatever the Secretary of State said yesterday about the voluntary sector being satisfied, the opposite is true. The Government have not satisfied the voluntary movement in the GLC and metropolitan areas that they will safeguard voluntary services after abolition.
The Government are looking to individual borough and district councils to fund directly grants to voluntary organisations. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has already been in touch with borough and district councils in the areas threatened with abolition, but only one in eight has been able to predict with any confidence that it will be able to fulfil the majority of its new responsibilities towards local voluntary organisations.
Furthermore, the Government suggest that £5 million a year for four years after 1986–87 is sufficient to ease transitional problems following abolition. Of that total, 75 per cent., or £3·75 million, will be directly funded by the Government. So far, that is the only central Government money being made available to replace the £60 million now being spent by the GLC and the metropolitan councils. The Government have said that they want borough and district councils in the metropolitan and GLC areas to take part in collective funding schemes to cope with projects that operate across several borough and district areas. Under those proposed collective arrangements, the councils would have to reach a two thirds majority before agreeing to approve funding of voluntary organisations.
If the Minister and his friends want to allay fears of voluntary organisations, they will need an interim period in which to prove that the funding will be there and in which the anxieties of many of the voluntary groups, which now fear that they will not be funded, are satisfied. If the Government vote down the amendment, they will rue the day they did. The amendment will save them from the chaos that they will otherwise create. Incidentally, I know Mr. Gordon Moore of Bradford, but he is not a chief executive of all the successor authorities and I do not think that he is qualified to say that there will not be any chaos. There will be other successor authorities in his area, and not all of them will be democratically elected. However, the Government will rue the day that they vote down this amendment, because their proposals are a recipe for chaos and disaster. They are also a recipe for Tory unpopularity throughout the metropolitan and GLC areas. It is with altruism that we commend the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 156, Noes 257.

Division No. 52]
[8.57 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Alton, David
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Ashdown, Paddy
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)





Barnett, Guy
Leighton, Ronald


Beith, A. J.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Litherland, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Blair, Anthony
Loyden, Edward


Boyes, Roland
McCartney, Hugh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
McTaggart, Robert


Caborn, Richard
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Marek, Dr John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cartwright, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Clay, Robert
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Meacher, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Michie, William


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mikardo, Ian


Conlan, Bernard
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cowans, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Crowther, Stan
O'Brien, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
O'Neill, Martin


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Parry, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Donald
Pavitt, Laurie


Dobson, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Dormand, Jack
Penhaligon, David


Dubs, Alfred
Pike, Peter


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Prescott, John


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Randall, Stuart


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Redmond, M.


Fatchett, Derek
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Faulds, Andrew
Richardson, Ms Jo


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Robertson, George


Fisher, Mark
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Forrester, John
Ryman, John


Foster, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sheerman, Barry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Freud, Clement
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Godman, Dr Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Golding, John
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Stott, Roger


Heffer, Eric S.
Straw, Jack


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Tinn, James


Home Robertson, John
Torney, Tom


Howells, Geraint
Wainwright, R.


Hoyle, Douglas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Winnick, David


John, Brynmor
Woodall, Alec


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. James Hamilton and


Lamond, James
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Ancram, Michael






Arnold, Tom
Greenway, Harry


Ashby, David
Grylls, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Gummer, John Selwyn


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hayes, J.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hayhoe, Barney


Baldry, Tony
Hayward, Robert


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Henderson, Barry


Bendall, Vivian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Benyon, William
Hickmet, Richard


Best, Keith
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hill, James


Blackburn, John
Hind, Kenneth


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Body, Richard
Hooson, Tom


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hordern, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howard, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hunter, Andrew


Braine, Sir Bernard
Irving, Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Jackson, Robert


Bright, Graham
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Brinton, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Browne, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Bruinvels, Peter
Key, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Buck, Sir Antony
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Budgen, Nick
Knowles, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Lang, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Lawrence, Ivan


Butcher, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Butler, Hon Adam
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Butterfill, John
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Luce, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lyell, Nicholas


Chope, Christopher
McCrindle, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maclean, David John


Cockeram, Eric
McQuarrie, Albert


Colvin, Michael
Major, John


Coombs, Simon
Malins, Humfrey


Cope, John
Malone, Gerald


Corrie, John
Maples, John


Couchman, James
Marlow, Antony


Cranborne, Viscount
Mates, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mather, Carol


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maude, Hon Francis


Dover, Den
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Dunn, Robert
Mellor, David


Durant, Tony
Merchant, Piers


Evennett, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fallon, Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Farr, Sir John
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fletcher, Alexander
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Murphy, Christopher


Forman, Nigel
Neale, Gerrard


Forth, Eric
Needham, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nelson, Anthony


Fox, Marcus
Neubert, Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Newton, Tony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Normanton, Tom


Goodlad, Alastair
Norris, Steven


Gow, Ian
Onslow, Cranley


Grant, Sir Anthony
Oppenheim, Phillip





Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stern, Michael


Osborn, Sir John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Ottaway, Richard
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Sumberg, David


Parris, Matthew
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Terlezki, Stefan


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pawsey, James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Porter, Barry
Thome, Neil (Ilford S)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Thornton, Malcolm


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Powley, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Price, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Proctor, K. Harvey
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
van Straubenzee, Sir W,


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Nicholas
Watson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitfield, John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Silvester, Fred
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Woodcock, Michael


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spencer, Derek



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Steen, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 35, in page 1, line 15 leave out '1st April 1986' and add
'such dates as the Secretary of State shall by order appoint, after he has laid before each House of Parliament reports of independent local inquiries setting out proposals and recommendations for the future administration of local government in the Greater London Council and each of the metropolitan counties, such order to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'. — [Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 156, Noes, 254.

Division No. 53]
[9.7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Blair, Anthony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyes, Roland


Ashdown, Paddy
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butcher, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barnett, Guy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Beith, A. J.
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis






Clay, Robert
McCartney, Hugh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McGuire, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McTaggart, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
McWilliam, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Cowans, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Michie, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Mikardo, Ian


Deakins, Eric
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)
Parry, Robert


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Faulds, Andrew
Pendry, Tom


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Penhaligon, David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pike, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Flannery, Martin
Prescott, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Randall, Stuart


Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Robertson, George


Freud, Clement
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Godman, Dr Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Golding, John
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Ryman, John


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sheerman, Barry


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Howells, Geraint
Spearing, Nigel


Hoyle, Douglas
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Torney, Tom


John, Brynmor
Wainwright, R.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wareing, Robert


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Welsh, Michael


Lamond, James
Winnick, David


Leighton, Ronald
Woodall, Alec


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Litherland, Robert



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. John Cartwright and


Loyden, Edward
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Benyon, William


Ancram, Michael
Best, Keith


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Body, Richard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas





Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bottomley, Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hunter, Andrew


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Irving, Charles


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jackson, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Bright, Graham
Jessel, Toby


Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Key, Robert


Browne, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bruinvels, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Knowles, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Lang, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Lawrence, Ivan


Bulmer, Esmond
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Burt, Alistair
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Butcher, John
Lightbown, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Lilley, Peter


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lord, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Luce, Richard


Cash, William
Lyell, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
McCrindle, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Macfarlane, Neil


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maclean, David John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Major, John


Cockeram, Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Colvin, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Simon
Maples, John


Cope, John
Mates, Michael


Corrie, John
Mather, Carol


Couchman, James
Maude, Hon Francis


Cranborne, Viscount
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mellor, David


Dover, Den
Merchant, Piers


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Durant, Tony
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Evennett, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fallon, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Farr, Sir John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Murphy, Christopher


Fletcher, Alexander
Neale, Gerrard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Needham, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony


Forth, Eric
Newton, Tony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Normanton, Tom


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Norris, Steven


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Cranley


Glyn, Dr Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Goodlad, Alastair
Osborn, Sir John


Gow, Ian
Ottaway, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Greenway, Harry
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Grylls, Michael
Parris, Matthew


Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hayes, J.
Pawsey, James


Hayhoe, Barney
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayward, Robert
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Henderson, Barry
Porter, Barry


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hickmet, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Powley, John


Hill, James
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Proctor, K. Harvey


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Raffan, Keith


Hooson, Tom
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hordern, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Howard, Michael
Renton, Tim






Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Thurnham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Sayeed, Jonathan
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Scott, Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waddington, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shersby, Michael
Wall, Sir Patrick


Silvester, Fred
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spencer, Derek
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Whitfield, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitney, Raymond


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Woodcock, Michael


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, J.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sumberg, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Terlezki, Stefan
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 1, line 15, leave out '1986' and add '1987'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 38, in page 1, line 15,at end add
'or such later date as is provided for by sub-section (3) below.
(3) The abolition date shall be such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint after he has received from each authority or body established under this Act a report upon their capacity to carry out functions of the Greater London Council or of a metropolitan county council which it is proposed to transfer to them under this Act and he has published such reports.'

Mr. Straw: A few minutes ago my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was commenting on something that I have observed—that the parade of the Tellers tells us something about the social composition of Britain. Conservative Tellers are always taller than Labour Tellers.

Mr. Tony Banks: It was the welfare milk.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend says that it Was due to welfare milk. There was milk for the Conservative Tellers even before welfare milk was available to Labour Tellers, because they could afford it. That sociological fact—the linking of social class to height—was confirmed by a recent report from the Department of Health and Social Security. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) says that he is only 5 ft 5 in. That proves the point that there are some odd genetic groups, such as that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West belongs. I was saying that the report published

earlier this week by the Department of Health and Social Security shows the direct correlation between social class and height.
Amendment No. 36 extends by one year the abolition date referred to in the Bill. Amendment No. 38, an alternative amendment, states:
The abolition date shall be such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint after he has received from each authority or body established under this Act a report upon their capacity to carry out functions of the Greater London Council or of a metropolitan county council which it is proposed to transfer to them under this Act and he has published such reports.
You may confirm, Mr. Dean, that, although we discussed amendment No. 46 in a group yesterday, it will be voted upon after this group, so it may be for the convenience at least of my hon. Friends if I remind them of the content of amendment No. 46. It ensures that if the precepting authorities go ahead, there are direct elections to them rather than just indirect elections. As I fancy that there will be no clause stand part debate, I should like to make it clear beyond peradventure that we are opposed to the abolition of both the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
Last night the Government suffered a serious setback. They have a majority over the Labour party of 190 and over all other parties, including Irish Members, who, as far as I know, were not here to vote in great numbers, of 141. For the Government to have their majority reduced to 23 was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, a moral defeat and a major humiliation. There is no question about that. The Government have an enormous majority, with all the dangers to the future of the Conservative party that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), so sagely warned about during the election. In any other Parliament that would have been an arithmetical defeat, and the proposal would have been abandoned.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vote last night was not only a comment on this proposal, but perhaps was more a Conservative party comment on the present style of leadership of the party?

Mr. Straw: Of course my hon. Friend is right. I would not say that he was always right, but he is almost always right—99 per cent. of the time.

Mr. Martin Flannery: And the headmistress has had Tory Members in since then

Mr. Straw: Indeed. But even in the best-run schools, such as Eton and Winchester, there were riots in the last century, and what happened then can happen again.

Mr. Clement Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that as one Conservative Back Bencher is in the Chamber it would be decent to mention him?

Mr. Straw: I would mention him, but I am afraid to say that, not having seen him all that often, I do not know who he is. If the Secretary of State would care to tell me his name, of course I shall mention him.

Mr. John Major: He is the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Straw: I should like to say to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) that last night — I shall not embarrass the Minister by mentioning


names—when a Tory Member was speaking from the Back Benches, The Times guide, Vacher and Dod were all in use on the Treasury Bench as Tory Members tried to match up the photographs to the names, without success.

Mr. Flannery: Another one has come in.

Mr. Straw: Yes, indeed, and at the Bar of the House we now see the Back Bencher of the year—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who fully deserves that appellation for his persistent criticism of the Government. We look forward to his and his hon. Friend's support on this amendment.
Yesterday the Government suffered a major moral and near arithmetical defeat. The Secretary of State for the Environment was interviewed on the radio this morning about that defeat. My hon. Friends should savour the following extract from the Press Association tape. Under the headline,
Jenkin's open mind on London authority",
it reads:
Environment Secretary Patrik"—
the spelling suggests that the Press Association may think that he is a Russian—
Jenkin said today he would keep 'an open mind' over calls by fellow Conservatives for a new directly-elected authority for London to replace the GLC.
This, however, is a bit much:
But he told Tory critics of his abolition Bill that they must make a more 'coherent' case over what functions such a body would have.
His remarks came after the Government scraped home last night by just 23 votes to beat off an amendment to the abolition Bill tabled by ten senior Conservative backbenchers.
Speaking on BBC radio, Mr. Jenkin played down the scale of the revolt over the amendment, which called for a new London authority.
He said: 'I certainly do not agree that it was a near defeat'.
How much closer do we have to make it before he will admit a near defeat?
The one consistent feature of the Secretary of State's record in the past 15 years has been the way in which he sticks to his principles and convictions with great passion right up to the moment when he changes them. He was absolutely passionate in his defence of the abolition not only of the GLC and its elections but of the transfer of political power without elections until he was defeated, at which point he became equally passionate in defence of the present arrangement.
Seeing defeat about to hit him in the face once again, he has now said that despite all his passion he has "an open mind" about this. We shall take him at his word as he is a man of his word. I also take it that his open mind includes that of his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. Given that openness of mind, it must surely be sensible to delay implementation of the Bill at least until 1987 or, better still, as our alternative amendment proposes, until there has been the fullest possible consideration of a report from the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
Above all other motives, we are concerned for the political health of the Secretary of State and the Minister. I hope that they will listen to our counsel, advice and solicitation and accept the amendments in the spirit in which they have been put forward.

Mr. Boyes: It could be described as absurd, but I prefer to call it arrogant, for the Government to determine and

print in the Bill a date for abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC before the Committee even sat. Even worse, the Bill has not yet been to the House of Lords. Important changes were made to the paving legislation when it reached the House of Lords and I am sure that there will be changes in this Bill. That does not give me any great pleasure, as I believe that changes should be made by this House, where Members are elected and accountable and the full flow of democracy can operate.
I am concerned not so much about the way in which the Government have treated the House of Commons as about the way in which they are treating the people who live in the metropolitan counties and in the GLC area. However, the Government's behaviour is not inconsistent. Earlier in the year there was the paving Bill. That was another example of unprecedented action by the present Government in passing a Bill to stop elections to a body before that body had been abolished. All that we are seeing is a continuation of the same attitude on the part of the Government to the people of Tyne and Wear, for example, and all the other areas concerned.
9.30 pm
A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the small majority that the Government had last night. I consider that last night was a resigning matter for some Ministers. However, if they will not go that far, they must recognise that the vote certainly did not give them a mandate to abolish Tyne and Wear county council on 1 April 1986.
I should also like to mention the haste with which the Bill is being passed through the House and with which the set date is being approached. I was elected to a district council in 1973. In 1973, because there was to be a local government reorganisation in 1974, there were two authorities running parallel—a shadow authority and the new authority. Coopers and Lyband, who have been studying this problem, have said that
The problems of transition are substantial.
The problems were substantial in 1973, too. When the reorganisation finally took place, the shadow authorities had been in existence for approximately 18 months, and there had been a full year before the effective date of the reorganisation. I remember that period well. There was a great deal of confusion. There were many problems. Nevertheless, the Government believe that they can achieve a massive transformation from the elected metropolitan county councils and the GLC in not much more than six or seven months.
Furthermore, the Government have no right to carry out the abolition on the date they suggest, because they have no mandate to do so. Last night, we discussed the question of abolishing the authorities without an inquiry. In fact, there has not been—

Mr. Fatchett: There is no point in putting the case. The Minister has gone away.

Mr. Boyes: I note my hon. Friend's comments. The Government Front Bench seems to be leaving the sinking ship, as well as the Back Benchers. There does not seem to be much heart either on the Government Back Bench or on the Front Benches where the Bill is concerned. No doubt the new Minister would rather have had to deal with something more progressive.

Mr. Straw: I must explain to my hon. Friend that the Minister for Local Government was absent on my account. I asked to have a word with him at the back of the Chair.

Mr. Boyes: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I understand that there is a big team of Ministers at the Department of the Environment. The Minister does not seem to be very well supported by his colleagues at the moment. If I was a Minister who was trying to push through a Bill such as this, I would not be sitting on the Front Bench—I would be hiding in the Tea Room.
Although there has been no official inquiry, there have been tests of whether people want abolition. First, the Government invited responses to their White Paper in a short time. It is interesting that those responses and the analysis of them have not yet been published or put in the Library for us to examine. The Government have let us know, however, that the response was approximately 10 to one against abolition. Secondly, we have the evidence of several opinion polls. They are quite independent and have not been carried out by the Labour party. I should like to remind the Government of the results. In April 1984, an opinion poll was taken in a significant constituency —that of the Prime Minister. One would imagine that if any area favours abolition, it is Finchley. However, 66 per cent. of those polled opposed abolition and only 15 per cent. favoured it. It might be argued that that result is slightly skewed so we should examine the views of those who said that they would vote Conservative. Of them, 40 per cent. opposed abolition and 35 per cent. favoured it. On that basis, the Government have no mandate to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
More recent opinion polls appeared in The Observer and The Sunday Times. I should be ashamed to be a Minister who was pushing such an unpopular measure through. It is unpopular throughout the country, not just in metropolitan county areas or in the GLC area. Indeed, the Government are using a crushing majority to push through a measure that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said was included in the Tory manifesto without much stomach from leading members of the Conservative party.
The Sunday Times MORI poll found that 46 per cent. of those polled opposed abolition and that only 30 per cent. favoured it. A Harris poll for The Observer conducted in the Enfield, Southgate constituency, where there is a by-election today, found that 47 per cent. disagreed with the proposal and that only 31 per cent. approved of it. We can ask for a delay in abolition only until the Bill has been considered in Committee upstairs and by another place.
The area covered by Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council, of which I am a representative, has one of the highest levels of unemployment in Britain. The council is one of the bastions against the Government's policies and is trying to offset the terrible economic and social problems which have been caused by the Government. It is disgraceful that it is to be abolished. Do not take my word for it. I shall conclude with some quotations of people who might not be expected to take the same view as me. The Tyne and Wear Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said:
The Tyne and Wear County Councils spent £4·6 million on economic development in 1982–83. It has had a high profile and considerable success in its activities and the Chamber has been happy to work with it in this field.
I have received several letters from companies in the Tyne and Wear area which are appalled at what the Government

are proposing to do. I shall quote just one, which was sent by the chairman and managing director of Ronson (International) Limited. He wrote:
We strongly urge the Government to reconsider their decision as it could well reverse the trend towards encouraging investment in the various development areas in England".
On any criteria, the Government have no right to abolish the county councils on the date specified in the Bill. They have an obligation to cancel that date until further and fuller consultation has been carried out. This measure does not have the support of the elected representatives in the areas affected, the people in those areas or many of the businesses in those areas. It is a disgrace and outrage that the Government are using their majority to trample on the people whom I represent.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Is is sad that the Chamber is not as packed as it was this time last night, because the amendments we are discussing are of constituency interest. As a result of the timing of the Bill, we are left with a hotchpotch. It is one of the most bungled pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. Residuary powers affecting all our constituents are to be transferred to joint arrangements between the boroughs, and support for services is to be cut. I doubt whether the Government will be able to implement their proposals in the time limit which they have set.
Most hon. Members represent inner cities, but I hope that my hon. Friends from the metropolitan county areas will forgive me if, naturally, my remarks relate mainly to my own area. In the past, the services enjoyed by my constituents have been provided by mutual arrangement. For example, racialism runs throughout the whole of the London areas, but when Brixton and Toxteth went up in flames my area did not merely because of the initiative taken by the black community to set up a co-operative project. That was successful because the GLC gave £500,000 and the Department of the Environment £600,000. Further money was provided by Europe and the local boroughs. Such projects should be a beacon for the integration of people of different coloured skins into our communities.
We do not know whether the Government will be able to sort out such a problem within the timescale they have set. I could list 44 other organisations that have benefited from urban aid, not to mention a number of other services in which the GLC has made a tremendous input. For example, the Brent Association for the Disabled and a number of other organisations have in the last year received £800,000 from the GLC. How will the necessary bridging arrangements be made if the GLC is abolished on the date specified in the Bill? The Government's timetable will make it impossible to implement such arrangements.
The Bill is a hotchpotch. It is ill-thought-out and ill-conceived. It contains no planning or strategy, makes no economic sense and will not lead to efficiency. As a result of the date specified, the muddle which will follow will be just as bad as the muddle which preceded it.

Mr. Tom Cox: My comments centre on amendment No. 38, which calls for the authorities which will take over the GLC's responsibilities to submit a report on their ability to do so. I also wish to highlight the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt).
Many of the projects in my area of south London have been developed to cope with the kind of social problems


that are encountered here. We have set up advice centres for youngsters, training centres for the unemployed and drug advice centres because of the financial back-up we have received from the GLC. Only recently we debated the effects of drugs in our society, and we were told that the Government had such concern for this problem that three Government Departments would form a committee to see what Government help, along with local authority help, could be given to those areas in which drugs are now a problem.
We are entitled to told by the Minister how the services will continue to exist. The Minister has repeatedly told us that if the Bill becomes law there will be savings. No one believes that. Even allowing for possible savings, we have never been told by a Minister, who has replied to a debate or who has made a statement at a meeting about the abolition of the GLC or metropolitan authorities, that existing services will no longer exist after abolition. I have already mentioned services which exist and which are crucially important in my constituency. Many hon. Members who represent areas which will be affected by the proposals could also do so. If the Minister believes that local councils will be prepared to continue and develop such services, he is living in dreamland.
9.45 pm
Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I was a member of the Committee which dealt with the London Regional Transport Bill. We were given clear assurances that services such as the dial-a-ride service for disabled people would continue. It has brought great benefit to people in London. When we asked the Minister about it, he said, "Have no fear. We shall do everything in our power to see that these services continue and are extended". Yet Wandsworth council is doing everything it can to avoid a commitment to continue dial-a-ride services for the disabled.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Local authorities have been innovative, broken into new areas of deprivation and considered the plight of black communities. Because local authorities have been able to minimise the excesses of the Government, the Government are attacking local authorities. Is not that at the heart of the Government's proposals?

Mr. Cox: Unlike the remarks from Conservative Members, what my hon. Friend says is true. It is because of the Government's policies that the services needed—I could list any number—have not been developed. Local authorities such as mine have willingly followed Government instructions and made cuts. The services continue only where authorities are prepared to stand up to those instructions and provide them. That is at the heart of the Bill. Neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State has given a commitment that on-going services will continue and be developed.
At present the Wandsworth Disablement Association has applied for money for a survey about access for disabled people, but the local authority has rejected it. If Conservative Members believe that, under the Government or with Tory-controlleed authorities, there would be no development of the services about which we have been talking this evening—the dial-a-ride service,

help for the young unemployed and help for victims of drug abuse—they should hang their heads in shame. That is what Members of Parliament were elected to fight for.
Not only Members of Parliament, but many outside organisations are saying that to the Government. Many hon. Members will have received letters from organisations such as the London Cycling Campaign, the National Consumer Council and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Those organisations are not politically affiliated, but they know that the services that they try to provide are under threat. However, they have received no assurances from the Government as to their future.
The Secretary of State says that the Government's proposals will produce savings. We do not believe that for one moment. The Minister has an obligation to discover what will be the attitude of the local authorities which take over the services presently provided by the GLC or the metropolitan county councils. If the Minister does not do that, it will prove, as my hon. Friends have said, that this is a shoddy Bill that has not been properly thought out. If not enough Conservative Members oppose it here, let us hope that enough Conservative and other peers in another place will give the Government their just deserts and reject the Bill completely. In view of all the opinion polls and the statements of Londoners and people from other metropolitan authorities, the Government should realise that they have no mandate, as many Conservative Members have told Ministers, for the destruction of services that are vital to so many communities.

Mr. Wareing: Yesterday we talked about the need for an inquiry and covered much of the ground then. However, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the first sign of the Bill was in the Queen's Speech on 22 June 1983. If it receives Royal Assent in mid-1985, we shall have been debating the issue for two years. The matter will have been worth two years of argument. Yet, within nine months of Royal Assent, the local authorities in the metropolitan areas must be completely reorganised. The period is insufficient, especially as there has been no inquiry.
The local authorities which will be required to take over the services have a right to tell the Government whether they can manage them. Clause 44 refers to museums being transferred to metropolitan districts, but there is no mention of art galleries. What will happen to the Walker art gallery in Liverpool, which is a national asset? What will happen to Croxteth hall in Croxteth country park? The Bill mentions the South Bank complex and museums and institutions in the London area but not in Liverpool.
If I were Liverpool city council, which will again be affected by the rate-capping diktat of the gauleiters of Marsham street, I would be inclined to say, as the council has already said about St. George's hall, that we cannot afford to keep open the Philharmonic hall, Croxteth hall or Speke hall. The Secretary of State must tell the people of Merseyside what will happen to those assets.
Tourism is hardly mentioned in the Bill, yet the Liverpool city council, under the Liberals and Sir Trevor Jones, gave up tourism. Jobs would have been lost at the o Lime street tourist office, Liverpool, had it not been for the economic development committee of Merseyside county council, under my chairmanship. If Liverpool is to be asked to take over the responsibility for tourism, we can


forget about it. Liverpool does not have sufficient resources with which to deal with the vast housing and education problems and the social services difficulties.
Merseyside is proud of its record on tourism and economic development. It is proud of its record in creating jobs. Each year it sponsors the Merseyside river festival. It created the Tall Ships race which coincided with the international garden festival. Merseyside is proud of its ferry services. It has expanded all of its tourist services in order to allow the people of Liverpool and people from other parts of the world to enjoy the international garden festival. All that will go for a naught if the Government get their way and attempt precipitously to implement the Bill in 1986.
If the Government have any sense and want to make anything of the morass that they are creating, it must be an organised morass. To do that, they must take longer. Even if the Bill receives Royal Assent in June or July of 1985, it will be impracticable to implement it in detail by the spring of 1986. If the Government try to implement the Bill as rapidly as they say they wish to implement it, the municipal enterprise which areas like Merseyside and the west midlands have shown in the past five or six years will be set at naught. They will destroy the hopes of the people in those areas.

Mr. Bermingham: I ask the Secretary of State to look carefully at paragraph 15 of schedule 8, which deals with trading standards. It contains no provision to transfer the right to prosecute from the outgoing authority to the authority which is to take over responsibility for trading standards. It is very important that we should not get into the mess that we got into in the past when we created new authorities in place of the old ones.
I ask the Secretary of State to look also at a number of the legal functions of the county councils. I ask him to consider the problems involved in the transfer of property and in civil litigation involving local authorities, or on behalf of local authorities, which are to go out of existence. The morass that will be created will be colossal. It would not cost anything to devote a little time to this problem, and by doing that a great deal of expense, hardship and misery could be prevented. If the Bill is to be passed, it ought to be passed in as orderly and efficient a manner as possible. That will take time.
There is an old saying that politicians can decree, but that human beings have to undertake and carry out what has been decreed. It is imperative that the mistakes of 1964 and 1972 are not repeated. If they are repeated, they will create a great deal of work for lawyers. Lawyers welcome the creation of work, but that would not be in the interests of the electors. They are the people to whom the Government ultimately will be accountable. The electors of this country, the electors in the metropolitan areas, in the City of London and in the GLC will hold the Government accountable for the waste that they will cause by trying to hurry through an ill-conceived and ill-thought-out Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: I speak tonight on behalf of my constituency and also as an hon. Member who is sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. I want to place on record the disgraceful way in which all the trade unions were treated over consultation. Before the Bill was introduced, no substantive replies were received to the letters which were sent to the Government about abolition.
The effects of abolishing an authority in one year will be devastating. Anyone who had anything to do with the creation of the metropolitan counties or the GLC knows that there are still staffing arguments going back to the pre-1964 period. There are still protected conditions for former employees of the Middlesex county council who now work for the GLC. The same sort of problems exist in the metropolitan counties.
If the Government are saying to an organisation that employs 21,000 people that it must cease to exist within the year, the effect of the loss of jobs on the economy of London—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour — [Mr. Major.]

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Corbyn: The effect on staff of the devastation of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will be profound. There are still problems from the 1964 reorganisation and from the transfer of housing functions in 1982.
The Government's offer of a staff commission, which will not protect the interests of the staff, but will act as an agency for the Secretary of State in destroying jobs and creating more unemployment, must be strongly opposed.
The Secretary of State has the temerity to say that he is not getting co-operation from the trade unions. I ask him to think back. There has been no consultation with the trade unions, but we have had from the Secretary of State a high-handed refusal even to offer the same sums as his predecessor offered on the transfer of housing in 1982. Yet the Secretary of State complains that the trade unions are unco-operative.
The Government just managed to win a vote yesterday. Any other Government who lost so many votes in a Division would have resigned. From now on, the abolition procedures will be met with the strongest possible resistance by those employed in the metropolitan counties who are not prepared to see jobs and services destroyed.
The Government are not even prepared to say how much abolition will cost in terms of lost services, unemployment benefit, redundancy pay and other crucial matters. Yet they have the temerity to attack people who have given their working lives to the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
Some people at county hall can remember the present Secretary of State for Education and Science visiting them in 1963 and telling them that London county council employees had nothing to fear from the establishment of the GLC and that it would provide continuity of employment. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to talk to employees who have been at county hall for 40 years or more and say, "Your future is secure. You can pick up your redundancy cheque in six months' time?" That is all that the Government are prepared to offer to people who have given good service for so long to London and the metropolitan counties.
The Government may try to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties in six months, but I predict that they will not succeed, because of the opposition throughout London, the opposition of individual workers and trade


unions in those authorities and the opposition that will be mounted in this House and in another place. From now on, it is downhill for the Government as they try to destroy democracy and so many of the things that democracy in London and the metropolitan counties has provided.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Only fleetingly have the amendments under discussion been touched on in the past three quarters of an hour, and I am not in the least surprised about that, because on two amendments the Labour party has not voted when opportunities have been provided for it to vote to keep the GLC and the metropolitan counties. On those two crucial amendments, they abstained.
We have made it clear from the outset that we intend the abolition of these authorities to take place on 1 April 1986. This was stated in the White Paper and the Bill has been introduced, as promised, early in this Session in line with the timetable that we proposed.
The hon. Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) have argued that more time is needed to put our plans into effect, but I do not agree. The boroughs and districts are already fully functioning local authorities—this contrasts with the situation in 1963–65 and 1972–74 when all the successor bodies were new authorities created by the Bill. Thus, the bodies taking over most of the tasks of the GLC and MCCs are in place and can begin planning for the transfer from an early stage. The fact that some of them are not doing so at the moment is regrettable, but I am sure that all authorities will be able to make adequate preparations for the changeover.
The new joint authorities will be formally in place from September 1985, with adequate time to prepare their budgets for 1986. Again, there is nothing to prevent the borough and district members who make up those authorities from meeting at an earlier stage to give preliminary thought to their needs.
Labour Members are proposing amendments that would introduce unnecessary delay and increase uncertainty for the staff concerned. The GLC and the MCCs would no doubt continue their obstructionist behaviour. If they were given another year to live, we should have to submit to yet another year's advertising from Mr. Livingstone, and another £10 million or ratepayers' money being wasted. My hon. Friends would not accept that. The timetable that was set out is workable, so I ask my hon. Friends to reject these amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 1, line 15, at end add—
`(3) On the abolition date there shall be established for each metropolitan county and for Greater London a body corporate to be known by the name of that county with the addition of he words "Precepting Authority" or to be known as the Greater London Precepting Authority, as the case may be.
(4) The authorities established by subsection (3) above shall consist of members elected by the local government electors of the metropolitan county or Greater London, as the case may be, in accordance with this Act and the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(5) The authorities established by subsection (3) above may in respect of any financial year, or part year, beginning with the abolition date issue precepts to the appropriate rating authority for the levying of rates to meet, to the extent the authority considers reasonable in all the circumstances, the expenditure of

the bodies or persons or joint committees (other than directly elected bodies) to whom functions are transferred by this Act.'. — [Mr. Straw.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 157, Noes 280.

Division No. 54]
[10.08 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashdown, Paddy
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Home Robertson, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Howells, Geraint


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hoyle, Douglas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Janner, Hon Greville


Beith, A. J.
John, Brynmor


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Kennedy, Charles


Blair, Anthony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lamond, James


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Caborn, Richard
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Loyden, Edward


Cartwright, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clay, Robert
McGuire, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McNamara, Kevin


Coleman, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
McWilliam, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marek, Dr John


Cowans, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan
Meacher, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dixon, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Park, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fatchett, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
Penhaligon, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pike, Peter


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, M.


Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Robertson, George


Freud, Clement
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Garrett, W. E.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Godman, Dr Norman
Sheerman, Barry


Golding, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Skinner, Dennis


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Snape, Peter


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive






Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Michael


Steel, Rt Hon David
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Straw, Jack
Woodall, Alec


Tinn, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Torney, Tom



Wainwright, R.
Tellers for the Ayes;


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Wareing, Robert
Mr. Roland Boyes.


Weetch, Ken





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Aitken, Jonathan
Crouch, David


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Alton, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dover, Den


Amess, David
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Ancram, Michael
Dunn, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Durant, Tony


Ashby, David
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fletcher, Alexander


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, William
Forth, Eric


Best, Keith
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Body, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayes, J.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayhoe, Barney


Bright, Graham
Hayward, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Heddle, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Henderson, Barry


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Browne, John
Hickmet, Richard


Bruinvels, Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hill, James


Buck, Sir Antony
Hind, Kenneth


Budgen, Nick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Hooson, Tom


Butcher, John
Howard, Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cash, William
Irving, Charles


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jessel, Toby


Chope, Christopher
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knowles, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Coombs, Simon
Lee, John (Pendle)


Cope, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Corrie, John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Couchman, James
Lightbown, David





Lilley, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lord, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Luce, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shersby, Michael


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maples, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Antony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Speller, Tony


Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Spencer, Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Merchant, Piers
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stern, Michael


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Terlezki, Stefan


Neale, Gerrard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Needham, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Normanton, Tom
Thumham, Peter


Norris, Steven
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trotter, Neville


Osborn, Sir John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ottaway, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waddington, David


Parris, Matthew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walden, George


Patten, John (Oxford)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Pawsey, James
Wall, Sir Patrick


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Ward, John


Porter, Barry
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watson, John


Powley, John
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Raffan, Keith
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Whitfield, John


Rees, Rt'Hon Peter (Dover)
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Michael


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 156.

Division No. 55]
[10.20 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher, Alexander


Alexander, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel


Alton, David
Forth, Eric


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Amess, David
Fox, Marcus


Ancram, Michael
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Arnold, Tom
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gow, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, Harry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grylls, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Gummer, John Selwyn


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hayes, J.


Blackburn, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayward, Robert


Body, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heddle, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Barry


Bottomley, Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hickmet, Richard


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hill, James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hind, Kenneth


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom


Brinton, Tim
Howard, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Browne, John
Hunter, Andrew


Bruinvels, Peter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Irving, Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Jackson, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby


Burt, Alistair
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Butcher, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Butler, Hon Adam
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Knowles, Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lang, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Cash, William
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lee, John (Pendle)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chope, Christopher
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Churchill, W. S.
Lightbown, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lilley, Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cockeram, Eric
Lord, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Luce, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Lyell, Nicholas


Cope, John
McCrindle, Robert


Corrie, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Couchman, James
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Cranborne, Viscount
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maclean, David John


Dorrell, Stephen
McQuarrie, Albert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Major, John


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Malone, Gerald


Dunn, Robert
Maples, John


Durant, Tony
Marlow, Antony


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Mates, Michael


Evennett, David
Mather, Carol


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Maude, Hon Francis


Fallon, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Farr, Sir John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mellor, David





Merchant, Piers
Sims, Roger


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Speller, Tony


Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Spencer, Derek


Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Moore, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Squire, Robin


Murphy, Christopher
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neale, Gerrard
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Normanton, Tom
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steven
Tapsell, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Terlezki, Stefan


Osborn, Sir John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Ottaway, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Parris, Matthew
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Porter, Barry
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Viggers, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Waddington, David


Powley, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watson, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Whitfield, John


Rowe, Andrew
Whitney, Raymond


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wolfson, Mark


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wood, Timothy


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodcock, Michael


Scott, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Michael Neubert.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Ashdown, Paddy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cartwright, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clay, Robert


Barnett, Guy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Beith, A. J.
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Conlan, Bernard


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin F, (Livingston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Anthony
Cowans, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Crowther, Stan






Cunliffe, Lawrence
McTaggart, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Deakins, Eric
Meacher, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Michie, William


Dixon, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Faulds, Andrew
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Park, George


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Parry, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pavitt, Laurie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Prescott, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Randall, Stuart


Freud, Clement
Redmond, M.


Garrett, W. E.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Godman, Dr Norman
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Golding, John
Robertson, George


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Hardy, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sheerman, Barry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Haynes, Frank
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Skinner, Dennis


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Howells, Geraint
Snape, Peter


Hoyle, Douglas
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Janner, Hon Greville
Stott, Roger


John, Brynmor
Straw, Jack


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Torney, Tom


Kennedy, Charles
Wainwright, R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Kirkwood, Archy
Wareing, Robert


Lamond, James
Weetch, Ken


Leighton, Ronald
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Woodall, Alec


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Loyden, Edward



McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tellers for the Noes:


McGuire, Michael
Mr. John McWilliam and


McKelvey, William
Mr. Allen McKay.


McNamara, Kevin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill (clause 1) reported without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Mundiya (Ombudsman's Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Max Madden: The report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration — the ombudsman — into a complaint that I submitted on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya of Bradford, in July last year, published at the end of last month, is extremely critical of senior officers in the immigration service and senior Home Office officials. The ombudsman concluded:
As my investigation has shown, there were a number of deficiencies in the Home Office's handling of this affair and their overall performance fell far short of what sound administration requires. I was particularly dismayed by their evident unwillingness to acknowledge that a mistake had been made and by their apparent lack of concern for Mrs. Mundiya.
The ombudsman added:
I cannot of course quantify what damage has been caused to Mrs. Mundiya's reputation in the community in which she lives by the Home Office's error in wrongly stating in correspondence with a Member of Parliament that they had originally regarded her marriage as one of convenience. I am prepared to accept, however, that the reporting of this fact by the local press will have caused her and her family distress and that nothing short of an apology by the Home Office will put the record straight and remedy the injustice which she has sustained. I am glad to say that the Principal Officer of the Department, through me, offers his apologies to Mrs. Mundiya, both for the distress caused by their error and for the inordinate delay in replying to her letter of 8 October 1982.
Anyone familiar with the language normally used by the ombudsman will recognise that his strictures in this report are unusually severe, and no fair-minded person would be surprised by that, for what we are concerned with in this report is not some inconsequential clerical or administrative error. It is a case where, when the grounds on which the immigration service was proposing to deport Mrs. Mundiya's husband from the United Kingdom were crumbling, under pressure of representations from outside, senior immigration officers and Home Office officials sought to conceal and cover up their failure to sustain the grounds on which they had sought to deport him by claiming, quite wrongly, that Mrs. Mundiya's marriage was a marriage of convenience.
That deliberate falsehood was inserted in a draft letter from the then Minister of State at the Home Office to send to the then Member of Parliament for Bradford, West. Inevitably, the falsehood was publicised in the local press, causing Mrs. Mundiya deep personal embarrassment and distress following the predictable reaction of many in her own community who had been led to believe, quite deliberately, that Mrs. Muncliya had sought to have her husband removed by saying that her marriage was a marriage of convenience.
Mrs. Mundiya wrote to the Home Office asking for an explanation in October 1982. Mr. Chris Brion, an immigration officer at Hull, aware of the falsity of the claim publicised by the local media in Bradford, asked his superiors for an explanation to be given to Mrs. Mundiya. A second immigration officer, Mr. John Scott, also based in Hull, who came into contact with Mrs. Mundiya quite independently, also asked his superiors for an explanation to be given to Mrs. Mundiya. All those requests were to no avail. Mr. Brion was even cold that it was inappropriate for the local newspaper reports to be corrected, and, so that


he got the message, he was firmly reminded that the immigration service rule book forbids immigration officers from talking to the media.
Mr. Brion is a very experienced immigration officer —he has been in the immigration service for 15 years. During the time he was pressing his superiors for Mrs. Mundiya to be told why her marriage had been described by a Minister as a marriage of convenience, Mr. Brion was requested to transfer from Hull to Dover, despite having serious domestic circumstances making such a transfer exceptionally unwelcome, and, despite the fact that transfer by immigration officers, unsolicited, and over such a distance, is most unusual. Prior to the requested transfer, both Mr. Brion and Mr. Scott had been removed from inquiry work, and when Mr. Brion failed to report to Dover, as instructed, he was dismissed. Mr. Scott has since resigned from the immigration service.
In a letter to me, published on the day that the ombudsman's report was made available, Mr. Brion said:
The PCA's report shows that the official responsible for the first false statement in the Mudiya case was the Chief Inspector in charge of the Immigration Service. On receiving a forensic report he decided that the original case against Mr. Mundiya could not be maintained; but because he was conducting a political feud against the Bradford Law Centre, and did not want them to be able to claim a victory, he recommended Mr. Mundiya's removal on different and very questionable grounds. It was when this suggestion was rejected by B3 Division of the Home Office that he invented the story of a 'marriage of convenience' to rationalise Mr. Mundiya's detention.
When Mr. Scott and I pressed him to tell the truth he manufactured counter allegations to coerce us into keeping quiet and to discredit us ….
In an interview which I tape recorded the Chief Inspector's deputy"—
Mr. Peter Saunders, now retired—
admitted that the action taken against me was in consequence of my wanting the deception exposed. He also admitted that lying to Members of Parliament is a Home Office tactic:
`On the file it says quite clearly it was a mistake …. now it's quite a different matter to go back to the MP and say, "Dear Mr. —, we've made a terrible mistake, sorry." You try and fudge it a bit to get away with it. If we could get away with not admitting we'd made a mistake then so much the better.'
The ombudsman's report reveals disturbing information about the attitudes and behaviour of senior immigration service and Home Office officials. I should like to quote from another letter that I have received since the ombudsman's report was published, from Mr. John Scott. He says:
Finally, the Ombudsman's report indicates that there are serious things wrong with the way in which the Immigration Service is being run, by people who are prepared to subvert their powers to suppress embarrassing material, to put junior officers in fear of doing their duty, and to persuade senior ones to change their minds to suit their demanas. The distress which such malpractices can cause to innocent members of the public is incalculable.
It is clear from the report, the correspondence and other information that I have received that the conduct of immigration policy is seen by senior officials of the immigration service and Home Office officials as a political battleground where those who represent and support those facing removal and deportation are seen as political enemies to be defeated.
The Home Office also receives political intelligence from the special branch. I quote from the report of a

special branch sergeant, Home Office file reference M394273/2 Mundiya, to an acting inspector at Hull immigration office. It says:
Just a few of the many cuttings that have been appearing in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus Newspapers. These have been appearing at an alarming rate in recent weeks and there is little doubt that there is a concerted effort by the Bradford Asian Youth Movement (left Wing), other left Wing Groups, Tim Whitfield (Senior Community Relations Officer) (left Winger and John Salmon (Reporter) to overthrow the Home Office's policy on Deportations and Removals.
I wouldn't be surprised if the money being used for the campaign is being given from Bradford Community Relations Council's Funds. I was in their office on Monday and the whole wall was covered in literature condemning Deportations and Removals. A lot of money is being spent on the campaign.
I was thinking of sending copies down to Peter Tompkins"—
chief inspector of the immigration service—
just for his information but you can do it if you think it advisable. I have enclosed two copies of each. There have been others, but I think these are the most significant.
As it was a Home Office Minister who claimed that the marriage of my constituent was a marriage of convenience, equity dictates that the Home Secretary and not the permanent secretary should apologise to my constituent.
The Minister should give clear assurances today that the calculated, premeditated damage done to Mrs. Mundiya will be done to no one else and that in the future when the Home Office makes mistakes senior officers will not be permitted to cover up those mistakes by deception.
The public are also entitled to expect that public servants in the Home Office, including immigration officers, will not in future be subjected to victimisation and coercion. Mr. Brion must be reinstated and allowed to put his case to an independent inquiry. Both he and Mr. Scott have been denied the opportunity to put their case at disciplinary hearings within their service. That is the minimum that is owed to Mr. Brion, and I regret that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary were unable to agree to my request some time ago to defer Mr. Brion's transfer until the ombudsman's report was published, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions preventing the ombudsman from inquiring into personnel matters.
There is hardly a black or Asian family in my constituency which does not have a complaint about how it or a relative or friend has been dealt with under the United Kingdom immigration and nationality laws, which are fundamentally racist and sexist. Every family has a member who has experienced problems with the immigration laws, rules and procedures, which they know are deliberately designed to exclude as many black and Asian people from Britain as possible, whether they come for settlement, as dependent relatives, for marriage, for study or just to visit.
When the immigration service and the Home Office deceive, conceal, manipulate and cover up laws, rules and procedures which are already deliberately designed to exclude people on the basis of colour and sex, outrage is compounded. And when the immigration service and the Home Office are caught in the act of deceiving, concealing, manipulating and covering up, as the ombudsman's report makes so vividly clear, all hopes of building a multi-racial Britain with good and progressive community relations are seriously damaged.
The fears, the suspicions, and the resentment that burns in the black and Asian community in Bradford and throughout Britain about the barriers put in the way of black and Asian people coming to this country will


intensify so long as they have no reasonable expectation that the present unjust, racist and sexist immigration and nationality laws can be swept away democratically and so long as those charged with administering the present laws, rules and procedures blatantly act in a highly political way to ensure that political victories are won at whatever price against people like my constituent, Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is absolutely right to raise on the Floor of the House the matter of the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, although his speech had, in the event, very little to do with it. Any complaint of maladministration must be taken seriously, and when a complaint is upheld by the Parliamentary Commissioner it is certainly the duty of the Department concerned to do all that it can to prevent a repetition of what occurred.
There are one or two things that must be made absolutely plain, in view of the hon. Gentleman's speech, lest anyone should be misled into believing that what happened in this case is an indictment of immigration control, let alone the control operated since the Conservative Government came into office in 1979. It should be quite apparent from the facts that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—I am glad that he is in the Chamber—was at best careless in his language, and at worst somewhat disingenuous, when, the other day, he talked of what had happened as having stemmed
from policies laid down by Ministers—policies which many of us regard as racist." [Official Report, 29 November 1984; Vol. 68 c. 1118.]
The events described could not, of course, have occurred if we had had no immigration laws, but the immigration law that formed the background to the case was precisely the same law as that operated by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. If the policies embodied in that legislation are racist, they must have been racist when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister. For once the right hon. Gentleman was being unfair to himself as well as others, for the rules were not racist then any more than they are racist now.
The other point that needs to be made right at the outset — I cannot say that I remember its having been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in his speech—is that in 1979 the Home Office granted Mr. Mundiya indefinite leave to remain here. He was given leave to stay here permanently. That would have been the end of the matter so far as the Home Office was concerned, but for one thing. In December 1981 Mrs. Mundiya telephoned the immigration service in Hull, saying that her husband had left her and that he should not be allowed to stay in the country any longer.
I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman never thought fit to mention a word of that. The story starts, not with an investigation by the Home Office, but with an allegation by Mrs. Mundiya.
Let us consider what is in the Parliamentary Commissioner's report, rather than what was not in it. There are two specific criticisms in the report. The first is that the Home Office failed to appreciate that the term "marriage of convenience", which appeared in a letter

written to the then hon. Member for Bradford, West. by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), could cause Mrs. Mundiya and her family distress. That criticism has been accepted by the Home Office, and apologies have been offered. The other criticism is that the immigration service took too long to answer a letter which Mrs. Mundiya had written asking why it had been decided that her husband should he allowed to remain here when she clearly wanted him out of the country. That, too, has been accepted, and again apologies have been offered. However, the use of those findings by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Gorton as the basis for a virulent attack on the immigration service, the Home Office and immigration policies generally seems to show no more than that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman have lost all sense of proportion.
The hon. Gentleman has, of course, mentioned another rather different matter—the fact that two immigration officers involved in the Mundiya case have made allegations of victimisation by senior management. The PCA makes it clear in his report that it is no part of his function to deal with these allegations and it would be entirely wrong for me to spend over much time dealmg with them tonight. All I need say is that last July—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this either, if I remember correctly—the Home Office appointed a senior official from outside the immigration and nationality department to investigate the officers' allegations, but the two men declined to meet the official or to put their case to him until the PCA's report on Mrs. Mundiya was available. Now that it is available, I hope that the investigating officer will soon be able to get on with his inquiries, that the two officers will co-operate with him, and that the hon. Gentleman will encourage them to do so.
I shall now return to the facts of Mrs. Mundiya's case, Mrs. Mundiya married her husband, a citizen of Pakistan, in this country in May 1978, but the marriage did not give him an immediate right to remain here permanently. The Labour Government of the day had introduced a one-year probationary period for foreign husbands and the rules introduced by that Government said that that time limit on a foreign husband's stay would not be removed and that leave to remain would not be granted if the Secretary of State had reason to believe that the marriage was one of convenience entered into primarily to obtain settlement here or if one of the parties no longer had any intention of living with the other.
In June 1979, however, Mr. Mundiya applied for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of his marriage. On the strength of a letter which, on the face of it, had been signed by Mrs. Mundiya, and which suggested that the parties were living together at Mrs. Mundiya's parent address, the Home Office granted the application.
Then in December 1981, came Mrs. Mundiya's telephone call. What she said must have caused great surprise to the immigration service. Here was Mrs. Mundiya asking for the conditions of her husband's stay to be curtailed when, on the face of it, she had, by a letter back in 1979, been instrumental in getting him permanent settlement. Clearly something was wrong, and there was cause for investigation. Mrs. Mundiya had to be seen, and when she was seen she said that the letter did not bear her signature and that, at the time it was written, she had not been living with her husband. In November 1978, she said, he had gone off to live with his brothers.
Mr. Mundiya was then interviewed, but he said that, although it was true he had not been living with his wife at the time, the letter was genuine. She had signed it.
The House will realise that, had it been known that Mr. and Mrs. Mundiya were no longer living together when the letter was written, Mr. Mundiya's application for indefinite leave to remain as a foreign husband would have been refused under the rules passed by the Labour Government. The letter, therefore, was seen as a deception and the leave to remain which had been granted a nullity. This led to the decision that Mr. Mundiya be detained as an illegal entrant pending his removal to Pakistan.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Mundiya's detention as an illegal entrant and his release soon after are the subject of a separate investigation by the PCA and it would not be proper for me to comment on Mr. Mundiya's case now except in so far as is necessary to explain his wife's position. Clearly relevant to the present matter is the fact that, when representations were made on Mr. Mundiya's behalf with pleas that he should not be removed from the country, those representations included a letter from the Bradford law centre which suggested that the immigration officer who had been investigating his case had been on such good terms with Mrs. Mundiya and her father that he had found it impossible to be objective.
In the light of that, it was decided that Mr. Mundiya should be released while further inquiries were made and while the allegation was investigated by a senior officer unconnected with the case. It was decided also that the signature on the letter should be submitted for forensic examination. The senior officer carried out his investigation and concluded that the immigration officer had not been biased, but forensic examination of the letter revealed that the signature probably was Mrs. Mundiya's, and as a result my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who is now the Minister for Overseas Development, wrote to the then hon. Member for Bradford, West saying that it was now accepted that there was no intention on Mr. Mundiya's part to decieve the Home Office, and that accordingly Mr. Mundiya's leave to remain was not viewed as a nullity and he had been released.
The Parliamentary Commissioner's report shows, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, that the representations made on Mr. Mundiya's behalf were taken extremely seriously by the Home Office and dealt with speedily, leading to his release. Whether in those circumstances, and in the light of the fact that Mr. Mundiya's case is now being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, the hon. Gentleman was wise to talk as he did the other day of senior officers having made a mistake in attempting to remove him from the country, I know not. We must wait for the commissioner's findings to decide that. However, I know that it was thoroughly irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman to seek the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 on 29 November and, at column 1117, claim that the officers tried to cover up what had happened by asserting that the marriage was one of convenience. There is nothing whatsoever in the report which we are debating to lead to that conclusion.
It is, of course, conceded that a mistake was made in my right hon. Friend's letter of 17 September. The letter was right to explain that Mr. Mundiya was detained because it was believed that his leave to remain had been

vitiated by deception, but it was a mistake to say that evidence had emerged that the marriage was one of convenience. It mystifies me, however, how the hon. Gentleman can allege, as he did on 29 November, that the phrase was inserted in the letter to cover up the alleged mistake in trying to remove Mr. Mundiya.
There was no need to allege a marriage of convenience in order to explain Mr. Mundiya's earlier detention. We all know why that happened. It is rather preposterous to talk of a cover-up when it is plain that when the former hon. Member for Bradford, West produced further evidence about Mr. Mundiya's marriage it was immediately investigated and acted upon and Mr. Mundiya was released.
So there it is. The facts speak for themselves. The other day the hon. Gentleman talked of the Home Office viewing immigration as a political battlefield. It is he who has tried to create a battle, but he seems tonight to be short of troops. There is no glory here for him and there is certainly no shame to be attached to the immigration service, which had to deal with a difficult case where the parties were at odds. The immigration service and the Home Office did their best in those circumstances to be even-handed.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Minister's reply was disgraceful. He has not accepted ministerial responsibility for what was done by his Department's servants. One would think that the ombudsman had never issued a report critical in the most stringent terms of malpractice within the immigration service. The least one would have expected from anyone but him—

Mr. Waddington: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way. The least one would have expected would have been an unqualified apology from the Minister for what was done by his servants.

Mr. Waddington: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has risen in the last moment or two of the debate to make a statement which he must know is completely incorrect. In the first words of my speech I said that I accepted the criticisms made by the Parliamentary Commissioner and that we in the Home Office had consequently apologised to Mrs. Mundiya.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. That is a matter for argument, not a point of order.

Mr. Kaufman: The Minister did not apologise, but merely said that apologies had been made. His characteristically squalid speech confirms every critical statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), with which I fully associate the Labour Front Bench. The Minister's attitude towards immigration and racial matters is a reflection of the inherent racism of the Government—

Mr. Waddington: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report?

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, my hon. Friend gave me a copy. He deserves every credit for representing his constituents and all the ethnic minorities, who clearly can expect neither justice nor decency from the Home Office.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o' clock .